This is topic Transformers 2 in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055679

Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
 
*No Spoilers*
So I saw Revenge of the Fallen last night and it was not good. Awful actually.

The good: The CGI was perfect down to every single nut and bolt and the transformations happening smoothly. It was funny(sometimes unintentionally) and it was exciting to begin with. Thats about it for the good.

The plot wasnt nearly as good as good as it should have been. It was either dragging through scenes and scenes of nothing happenning or shooting forward in a burst of exposition dialogue that you could hardly hear because the score was too loud. The dialogue left a lot to be desired too.

Also, I never thought Id say this but, there was too many robots in this movie. I didnt engage with any of them the way I did with the old crowd and most of the new ones were just plain irritating.

I know plotting and dialogue arent really a top priority when going into a Michael Bay movie but still its a shame really as there is agood movie in here somewhere. The first hour was actually quite good but its only after that hour when you realise nothing has happened that you remember theres two more to go.

Its as if Bay set out to make a near three hour epic but didnt have enough substance to fill it. This could have worked much better as a smaller movie like the first one or even just taking out the hour of the run time where nothing happens could have improved this movie immensely.

My main problem is that a Transformers movie is supposed to grab you by the balls. Its a testament to how bad this film is that not only does it not grab you, but it somehow manages to make giant battling robots boring.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Well that's unfortunate.

Did the "good guys" make more or fewer insanely stupid strategic decisions that put civilians in harms way for no reason?
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Damien.m:
Its a testament to how bad this film is that not only does it not grab you, but it somehow manages to make giant battling robots boring.

And yet it will probably still make $100 million at least.

(Course, I don't know what the budget for all that CGI actually was...)

There's something about a summer with two movies coproduced by Hasbro that makes you want to start drinking.
 
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
 
I actually liked it. I knew that it wasn't going ot be as good as the first one before I watched it though.

The CGI was of course great, although my friend still says you can not transform with people inside you.

The plot seemed like it was kinda thrown together and the movie seemed a little long in certain scenes.

The good guys seemed a little smarter in this one, although some things went left unexplained.

Overall I think it is worth seeing, only in theatere though so you can see the CGI and cool explosions. If your going for great plot and character devolpment, just don't go. Megan fox had only two jobs in this movie. Lean over stuff, run in slow motion.
 
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
 
Were the Transformers actual characters in this movie or was it still focused on the humans? I'm much more interested in a movie about the Transformers as characters.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question. Characters? What characters? Did you see that explosion?
 
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
 
anybody else find the movie a teensy bit racist? the two autobots who can't read are the two who are clearly of the ghetto demographic of transformers. maybe I'm off...

the movie was pretty fun though, for a 2.5 hour explosion.
 
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
 
From John Nolte's review:

quote:
As far as all the noise about ”jive-talking” ‘bots Skids and Mudflap being some sort of “racist” characterization, that’s simply absurd. Both are completely over-the-top in the satiric department. Like the flamboyant gay man we see everywhere today or Randy Quaid’s portrayal of a redneck Southerner in the “Vacation” movies, there’s not a hint of a mean-spirit anywhere in sight.
I haven't seen it yet, and based on the reviews may wait for the DVD instead, but from all the flap I'm hearing about the supposedly "racist" characters, they're played by both a black and a white actor and the 2 of them mutually decided to go with that style of speaking for fun, not to promote stereotypes or racism.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
They need to just turn the animated movie into a live action movie.

Maybe drop the scene on the planet of junk. Other than that, it's a whole lot of awesome.

Annnd, it has Dinobots! They that we were teased with and then denied in this movie.

I haven't seen it, and I'm not even sure I plan to. It didn't look good to me before the reviews came out, and they seem to be reaffirming my initial tale. It looks to me like between the two movies, Bay managed to ruin everything that was actually good in Transformers. Don't mistake me, I'm not saying that the cartoons or comics were some sort of masterpieces or anything, but they were certainly more than quasi-orgsamic explosion fests.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Have you ever fallen into a city-sized Cuisinart that is grinding its way through a vast Chinese scrap metal field and had your face abraded with shards of aluminum and eyelash-size scraps of rusty torn iron, so all the skin is peeling off your face, your delicate nose-bones being flayed by grinding gear bits and yesterday's shredded microchips and at the same time that song "Citizen Soldier" from the National Guard commercials is blaring at top volume, and somewhere in the distance you can see that "The Hurt Locker" is screening for no good reason and there is sand inside what remains of your teeth and then Megan Fox float-flounces by (like the cow in "Twister"!) with her nipples nearly pouring out of her crop-top camisole and some kid is trying to give her a flower but she is like "I am sooo busy getting highly paid and even though the makeup department set their mirror to 'evening' instead of 'day' and so my beautiful perfect skin is sort of plastered needlessly with foundation, I am still the hottest sex doll on two legs," and so she doesn't take the flower, the poor sad flower, which stands for natural beauty, a flower which is then blenderized like a sad goose sucked into a jet turbine? If so, then you have seen the new "Transformers" movie, which opens tonight at midnight, and despite all this awful noise and machinery, the real star of this movie is Megan Fox's rack, which is unparalleled in our modern time. ...

The plot behind the endlessly-long series of explosions that Megan Fox's rack is forced to endure is impossible to relate or understand. Of course, the world is going to end if the bad machines get their way. That is the plot in theory. In practice, there are a bunch of machines who are mad at other machines and they enter into many encounters where they whirl around, but if you are any kind of normal person, you won't be able to tell which machine is which, and so it will pretty much look like two or more enormous microwaves with swords violently mating. Some horrible chaos happened in the editing room where someone tried to make sense of this mess but it was too late. There are some ludicrous attempts at exposition. Actually, many of them—Hasbro & Co. are trying to throw so much into this movie to account for its endless run time, they have to keep stepping back and have some machine explain its motivation. This is hilariously sad.

There is exactly one funny joke in this endless, extremely long and unbelievably loud and nonsensical movie, and it has to do with the invention of the wheel. The rest of the things that pass for humor—which often take place at the worst possible time, as the "director" feels the need to add moments of levity to its explosions, thereby undermining his "end of the world" scenario constantly—are frat-boy fag jokes, crudities, robots farting, and general moronities. All told the script is WAY too crude for children; but also, far too childish for teenagers. At least people of every age and gender can have a relationship with Megan Fox's phantasmagorical rack.

http://www.theawl.com/2009/06/flicked-off-transformers2-the-revenge-of-megan-foxs-rack
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
basically what I am trying to point out here with this is that transformers 2 is a very bad movie.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
"Honey, our son wants to go see Transformers 2."

"Awesome! Now he can see Megan Fox's rack on the big screen..."

I don't remember anything after that.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
"Awesome! Now he can see Megan Fox's rack on the big screen..."

And a splendid special effect it is, I'm sure, but hardly worth the double insult of plunking down $9 or more and then sitting through two-and-a-half hours of Michael Bay nonsense.
 
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
You guys can bag on this movie all you want. I enjoyed it immensely. [Razz] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
"Honey, our son wants to go see Transformers 2."

"Awesome! Now he can see Megan Fox's rack on the big screen..."

I don't remember anything after that.

I don't think her rack is that great TBQH. The plot was not as bad as the reviews make it sound, and Shia actually does quite a good job with the material given to him.

As for freakin awesome rockem sockem robot battle royales, this movie set the bar just a little higher.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
I give Ebert's Review Four Stars

quote:
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.

The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock. They share the film with human characters who are much more interesting, and that is very faint praise indeed.


 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I don't think her rack is that great TBQH.

My son's only eight years old. I have not had the opportunity to teach him the intricacies of such analysis. His standards are lower. [Wink]

And Ebert's review is a great read...

quote:
A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion. I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with... fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples. They have tiny little heads, except for one who is so ancient he has an aluminum beard.

 
Posted by Chuckie (Member # 12098) on :
 
It felt like they had to up the ante on everything.. I mean, come on, no one needed to see that sector seven guy's rear.. It was ridiculous. I wish there was at least some semblance of focus on the robots themselves--at least the last movie had some character devlopment. This one really pushed the robots aside and focused on Sam. Which was annoying, since apparently he hasn't grown up at all in two years. All it is is one giant, never-ending explosion.

Speaking of explosions, out of all the explosions Megan Fox and Shia Lebeouf went through, hardly any of them could have been realistically survived, or at least there was no way they would have landed unharmed and got up running. I mean, I know there's not any "reality" contained in this movie but really. It was pretty ridiculous.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
As if Roger Ebert's actual review wasn't damning enough, he continues his attack:

The Fall of the Revengers

quote:
The day will come when "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" will be studied in film classes and shown at cult film festivals. It will be seen, in retrospect, as marking the end of an era. Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million). Like the dinosaurs, the species has grown too big to survive, and will be wiped out in a cataclysmic event, replaced by more compact, durable forms.
quote:
I didn't have a stop watch, but it seemed to me the elephantine action scenes were pretty much spaced out evenly through the movie. There was no starting out slow and building up to a big climax. The movie is pretty much all climax. The Autobots® and Deceptibots® must not have read the warning label on their Viagra. At last we see what a four-hour erection looks like.
[ROFL]
quote:
Michael Bay seems to be evolving in the wrong direction.

So is the hyperactive blockbuster CGI action genre. If there is one thing everyone in Hollywood thinks they know for sure, it's that the three most important words in movie development are story, story, story. This is not a story: A group of inconsequential human characters watch animation.

I love this man.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/26/terrific-review-of-t.html

quote:
Thank goodness Michael Bay made the new Transformers movie, because if he hadn't Charlie Jane Anders wouldn't have written this stupendous review for io9.

Transformers: ROTF has mostly gotten pretty hideous reviews, but that's because people don't understand that this isn't a movie, in the conventional sense. It's an assault on the senses, a barrage of crazy imagery. Imagine that you went back in time to the late 1960s and found Terry Gilliam, fresh from doing his weird low-fi collage/animations for Monty Python. You proceeded to inject Gilliam with so many steroids his penis shrank to the size of a hair follicle, and you smushed a dozen tabs of LSD under his tongue. And then you gave him the GDP of a few sub-Saharan countries. Gilliam might have made a movie not unlike this one.

http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie?skyline=true&s=i

I'd pay to see that Terry Gilliam flick, though...
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
*shrug* I went in expecting it to be awful, and thus was able to enjoy it more than a little but less than a lot.

Note, though, that I had to tell myself, "Stoppit!" when something stupid happened. So, I'd recommend it to anyone who likes cool looking stuff happening, but only if you're willing to give your suspension of disbelief a hefty workout.

(Hey, here's a big one: Optimus Prime dies in a fight with, like, a half-dozen Decepticons; everyone is sad. Sam was right there when it happened, but he knew - as in, had held it in his hand - that he had a shard of the resurrecting thing)
 
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
 
I think they should have gone the extra mile. They didn't need the sector seven guy, what they needed was Keanu Reeves.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xann.:
I think they should have gone the extra mile. They didn't need the sector seven guy, what they needed was Keanu Reeves.

They already have Agent Smith as Megatron. It might have been just too much awesome to have Keanu, even for Michael Bay.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Maybe it was because I'd had a long day and sat down to watch it at 10:45, or maybe it was because the guy sitting next to me had major body odor issues, but sitting through that movie was misery.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xann.:
I think they should have gone the extra mile. They didn't need the sector seven guy, what they needed was Keanu Reeves.

I thought that was what Shia The Beef was supposed to be. He and Trinity, I mean Megan Fox, even rehash that bit where the hero "dies" and the girl brings him back to life with the shear force of LURRRRVE.

In all honesty, though, I actually kind of enjoyed myself. I went in expecting it to be incomprehensible, terribly written, poorly acted, numbingly stupid. Plus I'd heard that the explosion porn wasn't actually that great.

All of those things were true. But they were slightly less true than I had prepared myself for, and so, another movie "triumphed" thanks to low expectations.

And let's face it, The Beef is an amusing and appealing actor (as annoyingly-written as his characters are), and Megan Fox is an amusing and appealing pair of breasts. So I guess it had that going for it.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
I wish it wasn't so loud that I could have slept through it.

My son loved it. Thankfully, he's still at an age where plot doesn't really matter and is completely inconsequential to him. He liked it for two reasons:

- Megan Fox (he didn't say it, but I can see the smile on his face. They learn so young...)

- Giant robots blow stuff up!!!

His standards are low.

Mine, however... I think I said it best when I described the experience as "...watching paint dry while being on fire!"
 
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
 
Is the paint on fire or are you on fire? Because I do not think I would mind watching flaming paint dry.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I reckon that anybody who saw the first movie and then went back to see the sequel deserves whatever they get.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xann.:
Is the paint on fire or are you on fire? Because I do not think I would mind watching flaming paint dry.

Had you seen the movie, you wouldn't be asking that question.
 
Posted by Catalyst (Member # 12119) on :
 
A group of us see a movie each week, usually on Fridays, and we have a particular affinity for terrible movies. I think we enjoy complaining about the movie afterward more than we enjoy watching theater movies in the first place.

Tonight's offering is a choice between Transformers and Drag me to Hell. Each terrible for its own reasons.

It's a shame there aren't more quality movies to entertain us.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
No, no no no, drag me to hell is a good movie

That isn't a choice between bad movies. One of them is terrible (transformers) and one of them is wickedly fun (drag me to hell)

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/dragmetohell

universal acclaim.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/drag_me_to_hell/

93%

come on
 
Posted by Catalyst (Member # 12119) on :
 
I noted that there was a difference between them. Drag me to Hell received good reviews, but it was still meant to be terrible, in its own wickedly fun way. Believe me, it certainly gets my vote for movie night, as it did last week when instead I endured Year One.

I will use you as a reference tonight when making my case for Drag Me to Hell.

It is technically another guy's call, but his last choice was The Last House on the Left, which left us all feeling physically, emotionally, and spiritually bereft.
 
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
basically what I am trying to point out here with this is that transformers 2 is a very bad movie.

I personally had a lot of fun watching it. Is it deep? No but it's funny and filled with amazing effects and Shia and Megan are really good looking and their characters are people who you want to root for.

[ June 28, 2009, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: aeolusdallas ]
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
My review after watching it a second time on IMAX.
 
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
This movie will not be nearly as decent in a home theater setting. The fight scenes will look like crap on a home system.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Just saw transformers today, I thought it was really good. (Unless you wanted a story that made sense)

Megan looks really good! My girlfriend summed up her entire preformance: Her job is too look good, lean over stuff, get really dirt and sweaty, yell "SAM!!!" a couple times, and lean over more stuff.
 
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I reckon that anybody who saw the first movie and then went back to see the sequel deserves whatever they get.

QFT. You'd have to pay me a whole lot of money to see the sequel.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
quote:
rag me to Hell received good reviews, but it was still meant to be terrible, in its own wickedly fun way.
No, in fact, it was not meant to be terrible. It was meant to be good, and it is.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
I was surprised by the amount of profanity in that movie. I don't buy the excuse that it's a PG-13 movie. The first Transformers didn't have near the amount of profanity.

I was disappointed.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Of all the things to be disappointed in...
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Of all the things to be disappointed in...

Oh come now Tom, is it really advisable to start playing the, "My values are better than yours game?" As if we could even begin to decide whether gratuitous swearing is objectively a worse thing than Megan and Shia surviving all those huge explosions.

*spoilers*
Well I suppose that last one sorta got Shia.
*/spoilers*
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
My issue was that I had my kids with me. They watch and enjoy the first one. We always skip over the "Sam's happy time" part, but other than that, there are not too many curse words.

I have said here before that I am not opposed to harsh language in movies. Just don't put them in a "family" movie. Considering Transformers is the story around a set of toys, I would call it a family movie.

We went into this expecting more of the same from the first movie. Instead, we got profanity laced vulgarity.
 
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
 
If your kids are to young to hear profanity then aren't they to young to see a pg 13 movie? I know it they are over 13 then they hear and say a lot worse things at their school then they would hear in that Transformers 2
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
You are correct and normally I am more diligent in screening the movies. Some movies are PG-13 for Sci-fi violence and others are for language or sexuality. Given the first Transformers, which we screened ahead of time, we felt safe in taking the kids. Especially given the content in the first movie.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
And... it's not about them being too young to hear profanity. They do hear it at school and such, it was just unexpected and not something we would normally allow them to watch.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
My son went to see it and he's eight.

He knows what the words are, just knows not to use them.

We had a harder time explaining the brownie...
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
As do my kids. My issue is that it is unnecessary to have that level of profanity in a "family" movie. There are Harry Potter movies that are PG-13 but don't have language harder than Bloody Hell.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
If I had kids, I'd be more far worried about the violence than the sex or profanity in this movie.

It seems to me that if you subscribe to the idea that movies/ TV shows/ video games can influence the behavior of children, then it should be far more objectionable to expose them to 2 straight hours of violence than a combined five seconds of swearing - which is about how things add up in "Transformers 2."
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveRogers:
This movie will not be nearly as decent in a home theater setting. The fight scenes will look like crap on a home system.

Unless you have a 42" 1080pi computer monitor and 200$ speakers.

Which some of us have *smug* access to.


I think I will personally compile a list of all the people who badmouth this movie and beat the ever loving crap out of all of you, seriously its an awesome movie with lots of Continuality Nods, THEY HAD A PROPER SOUNDWAVE!!! And he didn't die! And he had a mass driver!

Seriously people who DONT enjoy the movie have their standards so far up their ass that they are in danger of choking on it. Its a movie about our favorite transforming toy aliens from SPACE who cares about anything else?

Also I find that they upped the involvement of the US military and their effectiveness to be the best part the whole Human RedShirt army actually being an effective part of the action and not just clean up. So Humans hae been upgraded to Mauve shirt status.


However here's my issues:

1- I will agree with the difficulty to hear the transformers dialogue, however I don't mark it down for this because I am hard of hearing and have difficulty hearing conversation clearly 10 feet away.

2- Why was the US military operating in China with not a single member of the People's Liberation Army of People's Armed Police in sight? They could at least used Chinese helicopters and the Chinese version of the Tupolev for carrying people incase anyone spots them. A liason officer to boot would have made sense.

Thats about it, its a movie about giant robots and explosions what else do we need?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Seriously people who DONT enjoy the movie have their standards so far up their ass that they are in danger of choking on it. Its a movie about our favorite transforming toy aliens from SPACE who cares about anything else?
I'm well aware that you predictably did not care about the fact that the plot was completely brain-dead, the movie was bloated at over two and a half hours, and that the action scenes were mostly motion blur, but it's the height of fanboyishness to insist that nobody else has the right to dislike the film because of these things.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Its Transformers, I saw no serious difference between this movies plot and the 1980's movie. There's a bad guy, Humans and Autobots have to stop badguy, Boom Boom Boom badguy dies.

I think people are confusing plot with something else here, if a plot is the linear progression of events from A to B then whats the problem? They had a perfect plot, there was the enemy, he wanted to do something evil and destructive so they had to find the mcguffin to stop him, a battle then occured over the mcguffin and then they almost won, the mcguffin gets destroyed the evil dude gets killed and the normal villains run away for act 3.

Sounds like a plot to me.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
2- Why was the US military operating in China with not a single member of the People's Liberation Army of People's Armed Police in sight? They could at least used Chinese helicopters and the Chinese version of the Tupolev for carrying people incase anyone spots them. A liason officer to boot would have made sense.
Because they filmed it in Bethlehem, PA. I was there to see it [Smile] I know that has no real bearing on your question and is more of a shameless plug for me to say 'I was there!'
I really liked the movie and I am going to see it again.
 
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 
I didn't go see this one, and I'm not going to. The reason? The people who made the first movie told me not to. In an interview, one of them said that the second movie would have the "same depth of character as the first one."

That was all I needed to know.

Edit to add: The funny thing is, I think whoever said that actually intended for it to be a selling point for the second movie. [Confused]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
If they could have gotten 3! Divisions of PLA soldiers to help film "Hero" they could have contacted the PRC Embassy and asked "hey, can we borrow a few soldiers for a movie?" C'mon getting Soviet equipment should have been the easy part.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Love It Or Hate It: Revenge of the Fallen was slammed hard by critics who liked the first movie (currently 21% on Rotten Tomatoes), but audiences loved it better than the first movie and went back for more. It's on its way to becoming the worst-rated $400 million earner in film history.

RAVAGE! NOOOOOO! Please come back to me! *snif*

He got to talk in Beastwares I was hoping he would talk here.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Also from TVTropes

"Same Story Different Names: Fallen is a lot like the first film, but bigger. It's so awesome that only the critics and people who expected an actual plot have complained."
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
I didn't pay for my Saturday morning cartoons, and also I was a child. My standards were pretty low.

I've never been a fan of these superhero / nostalgic cartoon movies, but after I saw Dark Knight I realized that they could be (pretty darn) good movies. Now I expect nothing less, and the first Transformers movie was much, much less. The second seems to be even less.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Then it obviously wasn't aimed at you. But at the people who wanted to see Giant robots fighting.

They had SOUNDWAVE and properly!
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I wanna see Fox with the blonde robot kissing [Big Grin]
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
I agree with this review of Transformers 2.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-...-of-the-fallen

(formerly Moriarty at aintitcool)

My little brothers walked out of it saying ZOMG 10/10. I said I gave it a 7/10 and one of them started raving about how hot Megan Fox was, so I told him Emma Watson was hotter.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
2- Why was the US military operating in China with not a single member of the People's Liberation Army of People's Armed Police in sight? They could at least used Chinese helicopters and the Chinese version of the Tupolev for carrying people incase anyone spots them. A liason officer to boot would have made sense.
Because they filmed it in Bethlehem, PA. I was there to see it [Smile] I know that has no real bearing on your question and is more of a shameless plug for me to say 'I was there!'
I really liked the movie and I am going to see it again.

I was there too. The helicopters were cool. Soon that whole area will be taken over by casino property.

I haven't seen the first one, and the only reason I'd have to see this one would be because of said filming in hometown, but I'm not really that motivated. Oh, that and two friends of mine ended up getting cast as extras and went and filmed in philadelphia for a week. It's been hugely popular around here with the whole local filming. Apparently the theaters have been mobbed.

I find this all amusing since I absolutely adored Transformers when I was a kid. I had dreams about it.
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I wonder why everyone is looking for depth of character in either film. It's not one of those movies you walk out thinking it was profound or that it had good characterization.

I saw it last night. It's an explosion filled cgi-fest. That is all. Why would you expect any different? It was entertaining, nothing more. It wasn't bad at all.

You can't compare The Dark Knight and the Transformers movies, they're completely different categories in my mind.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
It does not surprise me that Blayne loved this movie. It was practically designed for him.

For what it's worth, I got to see it for free... and it was worth the price of admission. The fact that I didn't pay anything for it allowed me the luxury of just letting it wash over me, provided I beat down any brain cell that actually wanted to work during the 2.5 hours.

During the movie, it was fun and campy, and designed for an 8 year old. I was a little shocked at the language/sexuality in a movie so obviously designed for an 8 year old, though.

Sure my brain really, really hurt a half hour after it ended and I let those suppressed synapses start firing again, and I am entirely relieved that I didn't actually pay any money to see it.

It was schlock. But it was schlock with high production values... and exactly what I expected from Michael Bay.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
It does not surprise me that Blayne loved this movie. It was practically designed for him.

For what it's worth, I got to see it for free... and it was worth the price of admission. The fact that I didn't pay anything for it allowed me the luxury of just letting it wash over me, provided I beat down any brain cell that actually wanted to work during the 2.5 hours.

During the movie, it was fun and campy, and designed for an 8 year old. I was a little shocked at the language/sexuality in a movie so obviously designed for an 8 year old, though.

Sure my brain really, really hurt a half hour after it ended and I let those suppressed synapses start firing again, and I am entirely relieved that I didn't actually pay any money to see it.

It was schlock. But it was schlock with high production values... and exactly what I expected from Michael Bay.

**** off.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Blayne, I really didn't mean to offend - though reading through that, I easily see how it is offensive. My apologies for that.

It's just that you always defend movies that are all flash and little to no substance. It's like your bread and butter. It makes perfect sense that you loved it, and that you would defend it.

You're Michael Bay's target audience, after all. Someone who wants to just see action and flash, who is willing to not only disregard the need for plot/character/logic but to actively tell those who value those things that

quote:
their standards so far up their ass that they are in danger of choking on it.

 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
It makes it sound like that I am incapable of appreciating movies that are story telling works of art, which I will state is categorically untrue. The way I see it I go to a Transformers movie expecting a Transformers movie, lots of action, lots of Humongous Mecha, and as of the first movie and carried through to the second a crowning moment of awesome for the US military.

If I go to a movie expecting strong characters, a charming artistic direction, and a overarching plot that is what I will expect. As I'm not a regular movie goer I can't give specific examples.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I thought Transformers 2 was actually a pretty good 2 hour movie, wrapped in about 40 minutes of garbage. Like Blayne says, it's a popcorn flick with explosions which is perfectly fine to appreciate for it's own sake. I think if you removed all the dirty/racist jokes (which were pretty uniformly not-funny) and cut back some unnecessarily long action scenes, you'd have had a fun, decent movie. (I actually think it'd be a pretty easy movie to edit into something good, even with home video editing software)

My only real issue with the "good" parts of the movie is that the robot fights are often filmed so that it's impossible to tell who's fighting who and why.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I dunno about dirty but there was nothing racist about that movie, the twins were supposed to be parodies of wiggers not of the black ebonics subculture. One of the comedians who voice the twins IS BLACK and suggested that style.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
It makes it sound like that I am incapable of appreciating movies that are story telling works of art, which I will state is categorically untrue.

Yeah you browse hatrack, so...
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
*blink* what are you suggesting.
 
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
 
I was just saying that it's obvious you value "substance" if you like OSC enough to post on his website.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Whether or not the Twins were racist, they were stupid and not funny and the movie would have been better served with some random autobot in their place who was an actual character instead of a stereotype.

That said, how do you get "wigger" parody? Nearly everything about them (facial features, gold tooth, can't read, gangsta trash talk, names) suggests ethnic stereotype. I think there are some other directors out there who might have presented them in a way that convinced me they were actually MAKING FUN of ethnic stereotypes, but I'm hard pressed to give Bay that much credit.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Word of God for one, secondly they couldn't read Ancient Cybertronian! So of course they couldn't read it!

the Gold tooth is like bling that wiggers wear all the time I don't see actual black people wearing it.

I think you give Bay too little and you need to read the Tv Tropes article for the movie you learn things.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
the Gold tooth is like bling that wiggers wear all the time I don't see actual black people wearing it.
*facepalm*
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Most of their traits COULD be interpreted either way, but the facial features make it pretty hard to ignore, and I don't see any compelling evidence to the contrary.

"I give Bay too little credit"? What exactly has he done to convince you otherwise?
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I liked The Rock.

And the Island had promise, before it got all Bayed up.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I've seen stuff by Bay that I thought was decent (heck, there's a lot I like about Transformers), but I don't see a lot of evidence that the Twins are carefully constructed subversions of stereotypes as opposed to a ridiculous mistake. I don't think they were explicitly intended to BE racist (most racist things in media aren't) but I think they were approached with the same ignorance that bumbling ethnic stereotypes have traditionally been. ("It's not sending a negative message, it's just funny!")
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I can't help but think about a bit in the extras on The Island where Bay said something like (paraphrasing here) "When there's an action scene, I tell the writers not to put anything in the script, just write, 'ACTION!'" and thinking to myself, "and I bet your screenwriters hate your ever-loving guts..."
 
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick:
I wonder why everyone is looking for depth of character in either film. It's not one of those movies you walk out thinking it was profound or that it had good characterization.

I think I said this on here after watching the first one...it's not that I was expecting a lot of depth...but I was expecting characters. I think that's a reasonable hope for any movie. And when I got half-way through the movie and realized that I didn't care one whit what happened to ANY of the "characters"...from that point, the movie was simply tedious and boring, no matter how much action there was in it.

I watched the last half of the movie simply because I'd paid money for it. [Razz]
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
I can't help but think about a bit in the extras on The Island where Bay said something like (paraphrasing here) "When there's an action scene, I tell the writers not to put anything in the script, just write, 'ACTION!'" and thinking to myself, "and I bet your screenwriters hate your ever-loving guts...
Transformers 2 Script:

ACTION

The End.

(Total Run Time: 2.5 Hours)
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I enjoyed it, as did my wife. Then again, we weren't expecting movie history when we walked in.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
quote:
Transformers 2 Script:

ACTION

The End.

(Total Run Time: 2.5 Hours)

[ROFL]

Have we all already seen this?
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
...one of them started raving about how hot Megan Fox was, so I told him Emma Watson was hotter.
I'm going to have to say no on that for the sole reason that I still have a hard time realizing that Emma Watson is even "legal".
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Love It Or Hate It: Revenge of the Fallen was slammed hard by critics who liked the first movie (currently 21% on Rotten Tomatoes), but audiences loved it better than the first movie and went back for more. It's on its way to becoming the worst-rated $400 million earner in film history.


TF2 opened much higher than TF1, thanks to the excellent word of mouth of the first movie, and that's why it's getting a bigger overall gross - It's also helped by two years of inflation.

But it's displaying considerably worse legs than TF1, directly hinting at worse WOM, and it also has worse grades in pretty much every site, where filmgoers submit their own grades to movies.

This is not to say that TF2 would be having bad WOM. It's having a good reception from mainstream audiences - Just not as good as TF1 did.

This isn't any different from for example how Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 outgrossed POTC1. The first film in the series had tremendous WOM, the sequel used that WOM to open to massive numbers, and grossed more overall. But the majority of audiences clearly preferred the first movie over the second one.

Same thing is true of Matrix 1 & 2. Does anyone really think the sequel was better liked, despite grossing much more?

There are countless of examples of this. Box Office and WOM don't go directly hand-in-hand, as there are also many other factors that affect the B.O.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2