EDIT (didn't want to bump cuz this thread probably needs to die):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_EXxwDpq0&feature=related
This Linkin Park style remake of "The Touch" came from this movie's soundtrack apparently. It has nu-metal rapping in it. Loads.
It is without a doubt the worst movie ever made. There is not a single scene worth watching in this terrible terrible movie. It's not something where you read the reviews and say, "oh, I'm not expecting much, I'll just go for the action". There is maybe 10 minutes of robot fighting that would be good if it was coherent in a 3 hour movie. If Star Wars Episode II replaced every main character with a Jar-Jar Binks type, it would have been seven billion times better than this. Every scene was trying to be funny in a way that wouldn't have made ME laugh when I was 11, but maybe some of other 11 years old who are also very stupid. But I wouldn't even recommend this to a stupid 11 year old who I hated because this movie is worse than being stabbed many times. It was worse than Date/Epic/Disaster Movies put together. This movie was also extremely racist. How did they manage to make robots racist? If you're curious about how the movie can be so bad, don't be, you'll just end up crying and hating yourself for not believing me. It's not a matter of opinion, this movie shouldn't have been put into theaters and I now hate everyone involved. How can a sequel to a decent movie be so bad with all the same people involved. I'm depressed and there's a million more things to hate and zero to like.
Sorry for making another topic, the movie certainly doesn't deserve it but the other one had a weirdly specific title.
So.....you didn't like it?
Is it true that......
Spoiler
Prime died at the end? I read one review and they spoiled it without warning
Two spoilers, second more spoiling
Spoiler
Kinda, he actually dies in the middle.
Spoiler
Sam uses the matrix of leadership to revive him at the end.
Yeah, it is a fairly crap movie. The first one was good, IMO.
The Decepticon humping Megan Fox's leg was pretty bad, Skids & Mudflap were terrible (I totally understand why people are calling them "Pickaninny" characters), the continuity between films was rather poor (Optimus Prime gets owned by Megatron in the first film, in this film he can take on Megatron AND Starscream AND some other random Decepticon simultaneously), the final duel with The Fallen is extremely anti-climactic compared with the epic Megatron fight in the first film, etc. :thumbdown:
Plus, Devastator has testicles (!), and Jetfire farts. :doh:
The only good thing in this film was Optimus Prime ... he's just an iconic hero character. Unfortunately he's
Spoiler
dead for a good deal of it!
Out of the recent action blockbuster films I'd rank Transformers 2 around the bottom alongside Wolverine ... even Terminator Salvation was better than this. and Star Trek totally walks all over it.
And I actually liked it. It was a great popcorn flick, plenty of robotic, transformation action and fighting. Loved the Megan Fox scenes of course. But overall, I enjoyed it. Got about what I expected from a Michael Bay film. And yes, though Prime has some issues throughout most of this movie, he is one of the best heroic, iconic characters ever. Period.
I even thought that there was enough continuity between the original cartoons and this movie to make it enjoyable to a fanboy.
Ahh well, can't make everyone happy.
Of course, my wife agrees with the original poster. But that is why I love her...
Ahh, Skids and Mudflap. My buddy has warned me about this. Being of african descent, I'm told I would be mortified. And yet, this film is killing at the box office. sigh. SO, is it final now? Is Michael Bay a hack?
Hack?!?! It's an action flick! Story and characterization are NOT the most important parts. Un seriously.... How much "character depth" would you expect from a movie like "Die Hard"? Oh wait... probably too old of an example.....
Actually, Die Hard is a pretty solid example of an action movie that DOES have a little bit of depth. John McLane may not be Hamlet, but he isn't just a cardboard cut-out either. What disgusts me is that this movie, which by all accounts is an affront to narrative as well as an affront to cinema, is making unholy amounts of money.
Lol. Way old enough to know Die Hard. The 1st movie was great because he was an ordinary shmuck cop, that was put into a incredible situation. For the most part of that movie, he was just very very lucky. But he had weaknesses too. Nothing like walking on broken glass barefoot. The other movies did seem a bit contrived that he happened to be there once again, to save the day.
Really, everybody knows Meagon Fox is hot. Why is it we have to be reminded she's hot by showing her 1st scene bending over in daisy dukes? Even a blind man could see that was blatant.
Quote from: BentonGrey on June 29, 2009, 08:30:27 PMWhat disgusts me is that this movie, which by all accounts is an affront to narrative as well as an affront to cinema, is making unholy amounts of money.
Couldn't have said it better. Where are the Snatch, Way of the Gun and other cool action movie that were well written?
I'll probably download the making of though (i work in 3d/fx), as i didn't see the movie. yep, i just insulted a movie whithout seing it. But to be fair, I didn't even liked the first one, so why bother to watch a crappy follow-up to a crappy movie? Plus, i'd be damned if i ever lost another minute of my life to a Bay movie.
QuoteIt's an action flick!
Really? I could have sworn it was mostly trying and failing to be a comedy. I counted three major action scenes featuring robots. Two were okay, one was even good. The final one (which was actually long) was terrible.
QuoteStory and characterization are NOT the most important parts.
It doesn't work as a movie if those two things are both failing so hard while the action scenes aren't even 1/4th of the movie. Die Hard is a terrible example of something that doesn't place importance on characterization.
Yeah, I'd have to say that even action special effects movies need some character development and a plot that hangs together, otherwise it's just a long special effects demo broken up with slices of dialog and hot babes that don't seem to make much sense.
IMO, the Die Hard franchise is pretty decent on character development. I mean, John McClane has a distinctive personality that adds to the enjoyment of the movie. One can argue that that personality is as much Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis as it is writing, but regardless of where it came from, it's there. The later Die Hard movies, although I generally enjoyed them, were a little over the top for me. Not only is there the issue that this city cop just happening to be in the right place at the right time is such a stretch, but the character goes from being a likable-but-ordinary cop in the first movie to basically being a superhero in the last one.
BTW, a friend of mine went to see Transformers 2 as part of a work outing Friday. He said it was pretty awful. I read him part of the first post in this thread and he seemed to think BWPS was about right.
So is this movie really that bad? If you would have to compare its awefulness to any other horrible movie what would it be?
Interesting, from everything I have been reading this movie looks to be crap. That's why I was confused when my cousin informed me that I must see this movie. He was so impressed with it, telling me that it was far better than the first one. He must not be alone however as this movie is raking in the dough. I seen parts of it and what I saw looked like crap to me.
Quote from: Ares_God_of_War on June 30, 2009, 07:05:08 AM
So is this movie really that bad? If you would have to compare its awefulness to any other horrible movie what would it be?
An Uwe Boll movie.
Yes, it IS that bad. I felt like stabbing my brains until they leaked out my ears
Unfortunately, thats why-
Quote from: BentonGrey on June 29, 2009, 08:30:27 PMWhat disgusts me is that this movie, which by all accounts is an affront to narrative as well as an affront to cinema, is making unholy amounts of money.
- is true. It's like watching a messy car wreck. You want to know what's going on, and its been touted as the 'friends' movie - everyone goes to 'that' movie on a Friday, which is how I got dragged along to it, despite wanting to see The Hangover (infinitely better movie, IMO). Don't get me wrong, T&A, giant robots, and giant robot fight scenes are what made me see the first one, but it didn't convince me a sequel would be any better.
And the first Die Hard is actually spectacular on characterization - John McClane is a cop trying to work it out with his wife, he's just an ordinary guy shoved into an extraordinary situation and tries to make the best of it. Who can't relate to that feeling?
Hell, after watching Die Hard, do you not feel like patting the guy on the back? Or taking him for a beer? Or like you know THE John McClane? It's incredibly subtle characterization, it creeps up on you without it being slapped in your face (i.e. someone reading a file to you onscreen about John McClane), which is what makes it such well written characterization.
You don't realize the backstory is being filled in subconsciously, and it makes you care about the character, whereas in contrast with Transformers...who cares? The characters aren't the ones from the other media that I actually care about, so, to me, they are what the movie depicts them as. Which is...basically, nothing. So, even if the entire cast were wiped out now, and the sequel to this one (oh, there will be ?_?) had an entirely new set of transformers...I'd not care.
Quote from: Sevenforce on June 30, 2009, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: Ares_God_of_War on June 30, 2009, 07:05:08 AM
So is this movie really that bad? If you would have to compare its awefulness to any other horrible movie what would it be?
An Uwe Boll movie.
Yes, it IS that bad. I felt like stabbing my brains until they leaked out my ears
Yes.
I was going to say a Friedberg and Seltzer movie, as this could have easily been called Transformers Movie, but that's a better comparison.
Other than the excessive swearing and non-subtle innuendo that sounds like it came from an 11 year old who thinks that is how he will fit in amongst the older kids throughout the movie and the constant wind that blows in every female character's hair:
10 terrible things that are actually in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (minor spoilers)
Spoiler
1. A blender transforms into a miniature robot with a relatively huge laser cannon between his legs that shoots out harmless laser blasts.
2. During the college visit, Shia LeBeoouf's mother buys some hash brownies unwittingly, gets high, and tells every girl she sees that her son got his "cherry popped".
3. A terminatrix-style decepticon tries to "infiltrate" Shia, and her tongue extends as a long metallic robot snake with a human tongue still on the end. Bumblebee shoots some kind of green liquid (antifreeze I guess) at her but he can't tell she's a robot even though I could, he should be able to detect that somehow.
4. Two watermelon-colored robots with gold teeth act stupid and fight each other throughout the movie and pretty much talk about busting caps in people's. There is a black soldier who has 2 lines, "that guy was an a**hole" and "we about to get our a**es whupped."
5. Devestator, the classic ultra-cool Voltronzord transformer made up of several construction vehicles, has wrecking jimmies dangling between his legs when transformed, displayed with hilarious results.
6. Two dogs at the beginning of the movie are humping. This is so funny it is shown twice.
7. Megan Fox captures a little Steve Buscemi robot which humps her leg for seemingly no reason.
8. The Sector 7 Jewish guy from the first movie takes his pants off and is wearing a jock strap thong type of thing during a scene 2 hours into a movie that's supposed to be about giant robots when the 4 humans decide to leave their giant robots behind and sneak into the air and space museum and end up tasering the guards and then their own testicles.
9. A stealth bomber/old-man robot with a cane and a bad back farts out a parachute. Why would a robot age like a human?
10. After doing absolutley nothing to harm the robots throughout 2 long movies, the US Army cheers when two egyptian helicoptors fly in to be destroyed by Megatron. There are at least 30 minutes of what looks like the National Guard commercials before the movie as the military mobilizes their planes which don't do anything and fail hard or troops with useless guns walk in slow motion. Kid Rock featuring Dale Earnhardt - Warrior plays through all these scenes. The military is completely useless and does nothing but get killed throughout.
Another thing, I love alternative rock a lot, but I really don't see the need to play the first 10 seconds to 1 minute of 21 Guns by Green Day at the beginning of every other transition for every scene while he was at college. And that Linkin Park song sounds almost exactly like the last one, why even make it?
This film is incredible. A breakthrough in today's media.
I've never seen a film so brilliantly terrible!
Wrecking ball testicles? Really? Jesus (deleted dialogue which goes on longer than normal) Christ on a shingle stick! Wait, Skids and Mudflap are watermelon colored? God(expletive, wow there's a lot of bad words going through my mind at the thought of this) in a handbasket straight to the pits of hell, so help me, Hallelluya!
I listened to the Slate spoiler special and yes, they confirmed those details when complaining about movie. They pointed out how not only are these horrible jokes, but they are part of the CGI which means they where planned way in advance and money was spent on bringing 'em to screen.
And seriosly they could have made a good joke about wrecking b alls, but I think in the movie the guy just say's something like "I am under his testicles".
No rush to watch this, even the first movie had me begging it would end so I could go sleep in my bed.
Wow, the more I hear about this thing, the more I am disgusted with our culture...specifically because it is still making money. :(
Well keep in mind that the franchise has been and always will be for one purpose and one purpose alone: To sell toys. During the Marvel comic run and cartoon series, how many characters dropped in for a single issue or episode simply because the toy existed? That said, I will likely wait for this to come out on video before watching it. I wan't all that impressed with the first one. Well I was. I thought it was a great 90 minute toy commercial. And this one probably is a great toy commercial as well.
I enjoyed the first movie, but that list of things in the movie is pretty much enough to convince me never to even rent the thing. Too bad, I could have enjoyed a halfway decent, self-respecting sequel.
Yeah, I saw the first one, and I wasn't super impressed with it. But I have no plans to see the new one in theatres. I might rent it when it comes out.
Thanks all, you've saved me a trip to the movies and about thirty dollars (tickets are about $15 bucks a pop here.) I didn't like the first one that much and was putting off seeing the sequel. Now I can put it off forever.
I only dread having some of my more low brow friends go on and on about how great a movie this was for the next six months, and berating me for not seeing it.
It's another franchise where the game is MUCH better than the movie. Just like Wolverine, the Transformers video game actually has a better storyline, and NO lame jokes.
also, Transformers 2 is pretty much the ONLY thing playing in Korean theaters right now. My co-teacher just told me a 10-screen theater near her house is playing transformers 2 on 8 screens, and the first one on the remaining two.
Ugh, actually I woke up this morning at 5:30 am with a bad dream about transformers... too.many.explosions.
well it was still better than the new terminator movie....
much like the x-men movies, take it with a pinch of salt and relax and it isnt hard to get some enjoyment out of it, look at it from any other view and you're gonna waste your time by being too critical watching it, and then waste your time ranting about having to watch it :P
I went to see it with the misses because the mother in law offered to babysit and it was a nice afternoon out, job done, nuff said.
I liked Terminator 4 a LOT more than this.
The main thing which ruined Transformers 2: Rise of The Fallen was the sense of humour ... it was incredibly crude plus unforgiveably dumb. Maybe that's how the studio views the film's male teen and nostalgic adult demographic? If they'd edited out all of tiresome attempts at "comedy", you'd have a serviceable movie.
"A blender transforms into a miniature robot with a relatively huge laser cannon between his legs that shoots out harmless laser blasts." I totally forgot about the robot with the laser gun wang. Yet another "WTF!" moment.
Pass.
Meh, I enjoyed it.
Went in knowing exactly what to expect. Got exactly that. Was worth 10 bucks just seeing the tree fight.
Perhaps my one beef was Soundwave not getting into the action.
To be honest I think people take a lot of these movies to seriously. It's freaking Transformers. Made gazillions back in the 80's, is making gazillions riding the nostalgia train in the 00's. What more could ya ask for, right?
Saying things like ?It?s not supposed to be brilliant, just don't think too much and you'll enjoy it!? doesn't really help. Sorry but, ?turn your brain off? and ?have fun? are directly contradictory. It's kind of insulting to suggest to someone that you need to be stupid to enjoy any activity, not just to yourself but to themselves as well.
I?m not going to give any movie a break and pretend I?m stupid just because it has expensive special FX, hot women, and is based on something that, while patently unrealistic, could be something so much better.
It?s sort of a sad statement about entertainment when movies of this quality do so well, and then things that are too 'thinky' are panned. It?s just giving studios reasons to abandon plot, acting, characterisation, and reasoning in favor of hot girls bending over, s*** blowing up, and crappy 'humor'.
Quote from: Sevenforce on July 03, 2009, 12:07:23 PM
Saying things like ?It?s not supposed to be brilliant, just don't think too much and you'll enjoy it!? doesn't really help. Sorry but, ?turn your brain off? and ?have fun? are directly contradictory. It's kind of insulting to suggest to someone that you need to be stupid to enjoy any activity, not just to yourself but to themselves as well.
I?m not going to give any movie a break and pretend I?m stupid just because it has expensive special FX, hot women, and is based on something that, while patently unrealistic, could be something so much better.
It?s sort of a sad statement about entertainment when movies of this quality do so well, and then things that are too 'thinky' are panned. It?s just giving studios reasons to abandon plot, acting, characterisation, and reasoning in favor of hot girls bending over, s*** blowing up, and crappy 'humor'.
hear, hear.
I have to take the other route. I saw it and enjoyed it. I went with friends, we had a good time. Sam's mother was probably the best character in the movie. It had a story which could be followed, and honestly I don't see it as any less coherent than the G1 TV series, or the movie (like what was the point of Ultra Magnus even existing other than to sell toys). So yeah, it was a great 2 1/2 hour toy commercial, which is exactly what I expected. Anyone recall the opening credits, the second credit was Hasbro. That should sum things up right there. Toy commercial - end of story.
I wasn't going to say anything cause I thought I was alone, but I agree with Kommando. Went to see this movie with a couple friends and we enjoyed it. The movie probably shouldn't have been two and a half hours and it had it's flaws (ghettobots to name one), but that didn't detract too much from the fun. First of all, the old TF, Jetfire I believe, was greatness. Also, this movie had more TF fights in it then the first, which is what one goes to see. The first suffered from weird camera angles and quick cuts that made it impossible to get a sense of the action making it feel more like a disaster movie than giant robots fighting each other. Does it make sense that Optimus Prime was able to take Megatron and several other bots at the same time? Probably not. But it was a cool fight sequence that produced alot of memorable moments. When the movie ended the people in the theater (roughly thirty people were there since we went to the mid afternoon show) applauded. I don't believe in giving applause in theaters, it doesn't make sense, but that's me.
Quote from: Kommando on July 03, 2009, 05:13:11 PM
I have to take the other route. I saw it and enjoyed it. I went with friends, we had a good time. Sam's mother was probably the best character in the movie. It had a story which could be followed, and honestly I don't see it as any less coherent than the G1 TV series, or the movie (like what was the point of Ultra Magnus even existing other than to sell toys). So yeah, it was a great 2 1/2 hour toy commercial, which is exactly what I expected. Anyone recall the opening credits, the second credit was Hasbro. That should sum things up right there. Toy commercial - end of story.
Hardly. There is at least the possibility for something grander in the material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(comics)#Dreamwave_Productions
The ideas are greater than their beginnings, but Bay has made them less.
I didn't go in expecting much and I only wanted to see some awesome robot fights which in addition to Shia actually being funny is why the first movie was actually pretty damn good. In a three hour movie, I got to see one awesome robot fight (in trees), one mediocre fight (the beginning), one terrible fight (the end), about 150 terrible innuendo gags, and one funny joke (about that guy's shirt). It didn't deliver. I could make a 30 minute movie out of it that would have been pretty awesome although much less coherent but it doesn't make up for the rest.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 03, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
Hardly. There is at least the possibility for something grander in the material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(comics)#Dreamwave_Productions
The ideas are greater than their beginnings, but Bay has made them less.
I really would not expect to see any Dreamwave or G1 continuity from the movies, and yes I am familiar with the material and realize how good some of it is. Even though I know it would never happen, it would be neat if the two franchises (GI Joe as well) would merge resulting in Golobulus being crushed by Optimus Prime's fist at some point, but it will never happen. Not in the Bay-verse which has become a franchise on its own. Only hope is that another company might want to explore that franchise in another series, with maybe a few nods to the moves (kind of like how Roughnecks was vastly superior to Starship Troopers and was more true to the source material).
I've probably see more movies than most people because I never...ever... allows the opinions of others to prejudice my experience.
I am a believer that some movies... you just take them for what they are worth. Judge them on thier own merits and avoid unfair comparisons. I went to see Transformers 2 expecting a movie with a plot simple enough for young children to get... but with enough action to dazzle the other crowd. And for the most part... it delivered. Was it the Godfather..? Hell no! But I didn't expect it to be either. It was a decent and overall fun movie. It had short comings for certain. But it was not the gawd awful terrible movie some are making it out to be.
Why do movies like this make so much money..? It the same reason why much of the crap music made now-a-days sell in the millions, while 'real' music barely gets recognized by the masses. Its movies and music which caters to 'pop' culture. Its simple and non cerebrial fun. Most people don't go to the movies to analyze to death every aspect of every movie they see. They just want to be entertained.
It just bothers me when people say they don't want to see a movie based on reviews and/or what some one else said about the movie. I personally try to watch as many as I can, especially in certain genres and I make up my own mind in the end. If its bad.. its bad. But it won't be bad because I went in expecting the movie to be more than what it was... or because someone else said it was bad.
HQ, these kinds of arguments always rub me the wrong way. It posits a world in which we either have Shakespeare or neanderthal, frat boy-esq movies, with nothing in between. No such dichotomy exists. A movie can have tons of action, but still have a coherent plot. It doesn't have to be cerebral to be good. I can think of the new Bond movies, Iron Man, Hulk, or several other action packed blockbusters from the last few years. They were all full of nice explosions, lots of action, and while they may not have had the depth of "Hamlet," they still had solid plots and compelling characters. I'm not talking specifically about Transformers 2, since I haven't seen it, but I don't plan on seeing it because if HALF of what I've heard is true, I have no desire to fuel the machine that is turning out such dren with my money. The only thing resembling a vote that I get about what kind of movies Hollywood makes is how I spend my money. I'd rather not spend it until I know what I'm voting for.
It's the B:TAS vs. Batman the Brave and the Bold debate all over again. We get entertainment that is of a lesser quality because we settle for it. If we were a bit more discerning in how we spent our money, then people like Micheal Bay wouldn't be making movies.
First, a disclaimer - I don't care about Transformers. I never have, and the fact that Transformers 2 is a Transformers movie is the first strike against it in my opinion.
The problem with big summer movies sucking - and a lot of them suck - is that people go out to see these movies for the spectacle, and as if it's something that's expected of them (it's basically become a summer tradition, though it really only started in the 70s), and though they're willing to settle for bad summer movies (mainly by having reduced expectations), no one seems to love these movies. No one loves X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Transformers 2, Spider-man 3, X-Men 3, Terminator Salvation, GI Joe (I'm predicting), etc.; but people are willing to settle for them and give them a pass because they have CGI, explosions and it's the summertime.
It's actually not just limited to the summertime, but it definitely hits geek-friendly properties hard. For many fans of these types of properties, it doesn't seem to matter that the movie studio process defecates all over the property in question - if it's at all up a geek's ally, he or she'll overlook massive deficits of quality.
And this is exactly the wrong way to be. By reducing our expectations and settling for movies that range from garbage to mediocre, it just encourages the movie studios that quality isn't worth pursuing for these types of movies. Because quality is hard. You've got to hire better writers, & take the time to go through improving drafts; you've got to hire good directors and actually let them have control of the movie; you've got to hire talented actors who may or may not be the current 'It' boy or girl. The studios are willing to do this for prestige movies, ones chasing after Oscars in more than the special effects or sound editing categories, because the prestige means something to them, and those types of films tend to be cheap. But if big summer movies are going to make dumptrucks full of money regardless of them sucking, and since these movies are already expensive to make due to their special effects & scale, the costs of quality aren't worth it to the movie studios. It's an extra expense for no appreciable gain.
If people want to watch good summer movies - and I don't mean Hamlet here, but ones like Iron Man, the Dark Knight, the films Pixar makes, etc. - they have to show that quality matters to them in the only way that movie studios pay attention to, and that's by voting with their spending dollars. If you actually enjoy Transformers 2 and think it's good (and I don't just mean good enough) by all means buy your movie tickets, the inevitable DVD release, the DVD or Blu-ray double-dip, etc. But if you're settling for it because it's summer and a Transformers movie exists at all, save your money for something that you would actually want to encourage more of.
Despite the horrible reviews I went and saw TF2 yesterday (like HQ I need to judge for myself). I'm a bigtime movie buff and I can honestly say TF2 is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I kinda liked the 1st movie after I realized that it wasn't a Transformers movie...but a movie about giant transforming robots. The 2nd film is just god-awful. The script seemed like it was written by a 13 year old boy...fart jokes, humping dogs, humping robot, "special" brownies, giant testicles, hot chicks everywhere, horrible dialogue and characterization, racial stereotypes galore, and a plethora of new autobots and decepticons who just show up without names and what they actually transfrom into. It was also too damn long. Action movies should not drag out for almost 3 hours. 2 hours max. Bay's Bad Boys II had the same problem (also not a good movie).
With all the so called "comedy" in this film...I laughed once...and it was at a scene where you weren't suppose to laugh at. The film is as also way too pro-war america. I kept expecting the screen to fill with Old Glory flapping in the wind and the standard "USA!" "USA!" chant to start.
Michael Bay is a one trick pony who's trick has gotten very lame. He has to have his obligitory shots in every movie. The low slow pan around the actors as they get out of a car or get up off the ground, upward angled shots of buildings/towers getting hit by whatever. He even rips off James Cameron's shots of a sinking Titanic for his sinking of an oil frieghter that the Decepticons attack.
Quite a painful experience to sit through. 1 out of 10 ( The 1 is for decent special fx...when you can figure out which giant robot is fighting which giant robot that is).
Big screen movies and Radio Stations are not designed for the educated in general. They are designed for the others. That is why music sucks so bad nowadays. That is why the "Larry the Cable Guy" movies do so good. They're not for us, they're for them.
Quote from: thanoson on July 04, 2009, 05:52:28 PM
Big screen movies and Radio Stations are not designed for the educated in general. They are designed for the others. That is why music sucks so bad nowadays. That is why the "Larry the Cable Guy" movies do so good. They're not for us, they're for them.
LOL well I can attest to that. About three years ago I took three TVs to the dump as well as my radios and these days I can't be bothered to watch TV or listen to radio stations. All my entertainment comes from online.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 04, 2009, 04:37:14 PMBay's Bad Boys II had the same problem (also not a good movie).
**** just got real...
I just watched Hot Fuzz again last night. I suggest you all do the same.
Quote from: detourne_me on July 05, 2009, 11:35:00 AM
I just watched Hot Fuzz again last night. I suggest you all do the same.
I watched it again recently too. I watched Terminator 4 soon after ... sure enough, a character was firing their gun in the air and going "aaaaaargh!" :D
Interestingly enough, I just read that both stars of the movie in separate interviews stated that they have no clue what the movie is about or what actually happens.
That's a bad, bad sign. Of course, it means less coming from Fox. She may have looks, but judging by the things she's said in other interviews, that's about all she has going for her, but the guy, on the other hand. . .
LeBouf? Pfft. I'd actually expect Megan to outFox him (ba dum dush)
QuoteMost people don't go to the movies to analyze to death every aspect of every movie they see. They just want to be entertained.
And the bad thing about that attitude, is that it's BAD entertainment. It's like paying to see a pig fart for an hour and a half. If you knew thats all you'd be getting, would you still go? And if you did, still paying to see bad entertainment just encourages more bad entertainment, and you'll never get anything better - which, if someones deliberately paying for something so atrocious, they probably deserve :P
QuoteIt just bothers me when people say they don't want to see a movie based on reviews and/or what some one else said about the movie. I personally try to watch as many as I can, especially in certain genres and I make up my own mind in the end. If its bad.. its bad. But it won't be bad because I went in expecting the movie to be more than what it was... or because someone else said it was bad.
The idea of reviews is exactly that, though. You don't want to waste time and/or money on something bad when you can just as easily go and spend it on something good, you need someone to give you an overview, hopefully an honest one. Not everybody has the money or the time to spend on watching every new thing in the cinema, and requires a...spoilering, of sorts, to decide on what can be pencilled in :D
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that everyone should make their own opinions, but there just isn't enough time (there probably IS enough money :P) to see and experience everything to do so, which means you have to budget them both.
I agree, Sevenforce.
I'm not going to be able to see every movie... and I frankly don't even want to see most of them. I do depend on reviews and yes, word-of-mouth.
Based on the word-of-mouth I am getting from FR, it would be entirely reasonable for me to conclude that this movie would be worse than a waste of my time. Not that I was going to go see it anyway.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 04, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
With all the so called "comedy" in this film...I laughed once...and it was at a scene where you weren't suppose to laugh at.
Which scene was that?
Quote from: Jakew on July 06, 2009, 11:27:21 PM
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 04, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
With all the so called "comedy" in this film...I laughed once...and it was at a scene where you weren't suppose to laugh at.
Which scene was that?
When the US government liason shuts down N.E.S.T (Autobot and useless human Decepticon hunters) and proclaims that "This is our war now...and like every other war...we will win this one too!" (or something like that). It was such a lame line that I burst out laughing.
Quote from: Talavar on July 04, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
If people want to watch good summer movies - and I don't mean Hamlet here, but ones like Iron Man, the Dark Knight, the films Pixar makes, etc. - they have to show that quality matters to them in the only way that movie studios pay attention to, and that's by voting with their spending dollars.
The public actually does speak volumes about what they enjoy vs. what they don't. It just doesn't matter to the public what you or I would consider a good movie and what we don't. Do you realize just how many so called summer blockbusters fail...? Most of them flop. Very few succeed. And they succeed not by catering to the cynical minority... but by trying to cater to the majority who simply wants to have be entertained. Movie studios don't purposely spend millions on a 'bad' movie... but they will try to spend the money on movies they think would entertain. The question is what do you consider entertaining?
What the heck? One doesn't have to be part of a "cynical minority" to think many of the issues discussed about this movie are likely to make it crummy entertainment. And, I haven't really been hearing that the majority of moviegoers (cynical or otherwise) are raving about how entertaining they found it.
Quote from: House Quake on July 07, 2009, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 04, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
If people want to watch good summer movies - and I don't mean Hamlet here, but ones like Iron Man, the Dark Knight, the films Pixar makes, etc. - they have to show that quality matters to them in the only way that movie studios pay attention to, and that's by voting with their spending dollars.
The public actually does speak volumes about what they enjoy vs. what they don't. It just doesn't matter to the public what you or I would consider a good movie and what we don't. Do you realize just how many so called summer blockbusters fail...? Most of them flop. Very few succeed. And they succeed not by catering to the cynical minority... but by trying to cater to the majority who simply wants to have be entertained. Movie studios don't purposely spend millions on a 'bad' movie... but they will try to spend the money on movies they think would entertain. The question is what do you consider entertaining?
If you keep pitching to the lowest common denominator in all facets of life, that number keeps sinking. Don't get me wrong, we as a culture are getting precisely what we deserve. That is a very sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. That, however, is exactly why we shouldn't be wasting money on bad movies. :P
Hmm.... the movie Idiocracy comes to mind for some reason.
The fact is, people are going to this movie because it's the sequel of a popular movie they liked the first one, so they go to the next one. That doesn't mean the people going to this movie are actually going to like it, just that they will go to it because of the first one. In fact, in past, some of the most profitably movies of a series were ones that moviegoers considered the worst one.
The real measure of what the average joe thinks of this movie is how well the next one does.
Quote from: thanoson on July 07, 2009, 08:41:58 PM
Hmm.... the movie Idiocity comes to mind for some reason.
LOLOLOL
Quote from: thanoson on July 07, 2009, 08:41:58 PM
Hmm.... the movie Idiocity comes to mind for some reason.
Idiocracy, you mean. Yeah, I thought the same thing.
Yeah, lack of sleep affects my spelling in general. Plus, I just happened to look at my dvd on the shelf. D'oh!
so either i'm reading incorrectly between the lines of posts in this thread, or i'm indirectly being called "uneducated" for enjoying this movie?
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 07, 2009, 09:35:12 PM
The fact is, people are going to this movie because it's the sequel of a popular movie they liked the first one, so they go to the next one. That doesn't mean the people going to this movie are actually going to like it, just that they will go to it because of the first one. In fact, in past, some of the most profitably movies of a series were ones that moviegoers considered the worst one.
The real measure of what the average joe thinks of this movie is how well the next one does.
Agreed. The law of diminishing returns will prove out. Then again, there were THREE Pirates of the Caribbean films...
Quote from: stumpy on July 07, 2009, 04:38:38 PM
What the heck? One doesn't have to be part of a "cynical minority" to think many of the issues discussed about this movie are likely to make it crummy entertainment. And, I haven't really been hearing that the majority of moviegoers (cynical or otherwise) are raving about how entertaining they found it.
You're taking what I said wrong. The biggest cynics of movies, whether it's a good movie or bad movie, will always be the minority. And i wasn't talking about this movie specifically... just in general.
The people on these forums tend to be some of the most critical and cynical of movie goers. On these forums... for years.. I've seen movies diced to shreds before the script is even written. To many people assume a movie will suck before they go see it OR they build up thier expectations so high... the movie has little chance to satisfy. so they dice it up after the fact.
Personally... I have no problem with anyone liking or disliking a movie. I do, however, wish they would judge for themselves rather than going off of the opinions of others. But if they choose to mandate thier movie experiences based on the opinions of others... then so be it. But what I do have problems with, is when these same cynics in thier cynicism... infer that there is something 'wrong' or 'inferior' about people who enjoy what they consider to be a bad movie. The people who they say belong to the 'lowest common denominator' of life or get what they deserve by apying to see movies 'they' say are bad.
People need to realize that thier opinions are just that... opinions. Just because a movie doesn't add up to thier expectations..doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad movie... just bad to them. And it certainly doesn't mean there is something wrong with those who would pay to see the movie and find it enjoyable.
Quote from: UnfluffyBunny on July 08, 2009, 12:32:55 AM
so either i'm reading incorrectly between the lines of posts in this thread, or i'm indirectly being called "uneducated" for enjoying this movie?
I picked that up a while ago
If the shoe fits......
Kidding. :P I haven't seen this movie, and so I am making no judgments about what your liking it might say about you or anyone else. I AM saying that by settling for movies that are all show and no stay (whether Transformers is one of these or not), we, as a culture, are setting ourselves up for more of the same. We could get movies that have great action AND a decent story, but because we vote with our wallets for garbage, we are sure to get more of the same.
Sorry HQ, I don't by literary relativism.....or really, relativism in general. All works are not created equal. Yeah, there is a lot of room for taste, but some things are good, some things are bad, and human beings are certainly not above enjoying something that is bad for them. I love cheeseburgers....mmmm....cheeseburgers.....
Thank you HQ. You put that far more eloquently than I ever could. Seemed before Kommando made the first post this whole thread was going to be a treatise on how TF2 is a sign of the downfall of man and how uneducated 'the masses' are who helped this movie make so much money. Like I said I was a bit afraid to even say I enjoyed the movie because they would probably have torn me to shreds.
Is the movie going to be on anyone's top 10 of 2009? Top 30? Probably not. But there are dozens of movies released every year just in this country alone (and we are 2nd/3rd in terms of # of movies produced annually HK being #1 and Bollywood being around where we are). The industry is playing the odds and hopes at least a few of them are hits. Plus their favorite things are properties like Transformers, they don't see it the same way fans do, they just see the fans as a built in audience. As for how a script like this one gets by, the way I understand it, your average script reader reads three scenes, the opening, a randomly selected scene in the middle and the final scene. From these three scenes the reader has to make a judgment as to whether the script gets green lighted or not. When it comes to a sequel I'm sure the method is even looser.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 08, 2009, 03:28:09 AM
If the shoe fits......
Kidding. :P I haven't seen this movie, and so I am making no judgments about what your liking it might say about you or anyone else. I AM saying that by settling for movies that are all show and no stay (whether Transformers is one of these or not), we, as a culture, are setting ourselves up for more of the same. We could get movies that have great action AND a decent story, but because we vote with our wallets for garbage, we are sure to get more of the same.
Sorry HQ, I don't by literary relativism.....or really, relativism in general. All works are not created equal. Yeah, there is a lot of room for taste, but some things are good, some things are bad, and human beings are certainly not above enjoying something that is bad for them. I love cheeseburgers....mmmm....cheeseburgers.....
What he said, but I'll add that paying for sub-par entertainment only encourages more sub-par entertainment, using more money than is needed, when that money could be better used elsewhere, on smaller budget endeavours, for better results. See: a lot of Joss Whedon's work.
The entertainment industry as a whole is bloated, looking for the common denominator and the 'bottom line' to get the most money from a production, and, while good business, its not an indicator for quality (damn capitalism :P).
However, I will concede that all of that is exactly what HQ said - it's my opinion. Is it right? That is also up to public opinion. At the end of the day, the majority wins out, and at the moment, the majority has spoken with both money and opinions. The money just happens to speak louder :D
Yeah guys, people paid Picasso and Mondian for their crap which lead to even more BS stuff like Pollock and Warhol. One day far from now some poor student will have to watch and be tested on Transformers 2 and ask why they're watching such a bad movie and why anyone considers Bay one of the great filmmakers and the douchey film teacher will try to make him feel bad because he doesn't "get" it.
I'm just kidding, enjoy whatever you like.
Quote from: BWPS on July 08, 2009, 02:28:30 PM
Yeah guys, people paid Picasso and Mondian for their crap which lead to even more BS stuff like Pollock and Warhol. One day far from now some poor student will have to watch and be tested on Transformers 2 and ask why they're watching such a bad movie and why anyone considers Bay one of the great filmmakers and the douchey film teacher will try to make him feel bad because he doesn't "get" it.
I'm just kidding, enjoy whatever you like.
Ohh good heaven! I have seen the future, and it is a dark and hopeless place!
Quote from: UnfluffyBunny on July 08, 2009, 12:32:55 AM
so either i'm reading incorrectly between the lines of posts in this thread, or i'm indirectly being called "uneducated" for enjoying this movie?
thats the way i took this thread, if i enjoyed this movie in anyway then i must be an idiot and part of the downfall of society. yes i see the faults in this film and wish we hadn't seen devastors nutsack, or the ghetto/hillbilly bots but i still enjoyed an action film which when you see micheal bays name you should expect
Quote from: House Quake on July 07, 2009, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 04, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
If people want to watch good summer movies - and I don't mean Hamlet here, but ones like Iron Man, the Dark Knight, the films Pixar makes, etc. - they have to show that quality matters to them in the only way that movie studios pay attention to, and that's by voting with their spending dollars.
The public actually does speak volumes about what they enjoy vs. what they don't. It just doesn't matter to the public what you or I would consider a good movie and what we don't. Do you realize just how many so called summer blockbusters fail...? Most of them flop. Very few succeed. And they succeed not by catering to the cynical minority... but by trying to cater to the majority who simply wants to have be entertained. Movie studios don't purposely spend millions on a 'bad' movie... but they will try to spend the money on movies they think would entertain. The question is what do you consider entertaining?
A lot of summer blockbusters fail? Since when? This year so far, the only outright flop of a hoped-for 'blockbuster' was Land of the Lost; Terminator Salvation & Wolverine have "underperformed." And here's Hollywood's dirty little secret for whenever they plead poverty - all films make money. With international box office, home video sales & rentals, and the various levels of selling television rights (pay channels, broadcast networks, cable networks, etc.) every film turns a profit eventually.
But you're right, they don't try to make a 'bad' movie; quality is a non-factor on films like this. It's an added expense to pursue, with no guarantee of achieving it, and even if they did, quality is no guarantee of high box office. What they do try is to make a movie that, while appealing to the largest number of possible audience members, also does nothing to turn off or challenge those audience members. The audience for big summers movies like Transformers is mostly young - teens to late twenties - and mostly male, though that is somewhat changing.
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 08, 2009, 04:06:39 PM
Quote from: UnfluffyBunny on July 08, 2009, 12:32:55 AM
so either i'm reading incorrectly between the lines of posts in this thread, or i'm indirectly being called "uneducated" for enjoying this movie?
thats the way i took this thread, if i enjoyed this movie in anyway then i must be an idiot and part of the downfall of society. yes i see the faults in this film and wish we hadn't seen devastors nutsack, or the ghetto/hillbilly bots but i still enjoyed an action film which when you see micheal bays name you should expect
If you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine. But if you're just settling for it being good enough, because it's this year's big movie, or finding small elements to like in an otherwise flawed whole - which is what I've mostly been hearing about Transformers 2 - it
still doesn't make you uneducated, or an idiot, or part of the downfall of society, but it does make you an undiscriminating consumer. If you bought a pair of pants and you realized they weren't very good, but they had a few things you liked about them, would you buy more pants like that? Maybe, but most people would look for pants that included those elements they liked, but that were all-around a better fit. That's true of most purchases, but a lot of people seem unwilling to extend that kind of discerning spending to entertainment. And that's the only way to encourage, not "better" films, but films that you like.
We vote with our dollars spent, and too many people seem willing to vote for products and services that they don't really like without deep reservations or misgivings. That's the problem as I see it anyway.
Thank you Talavar, very well said.
Quote from: Talavar on July 08, 2009, 04:56:04 PMIf you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine. But if you're just settling for it being good enough, because it's this year's big movie, or finding small elements to like in an otherwise flawed whole - which is what I've mostly been hearing about Transformers 2 - it still doesn't make you uneducated, or an idiot, or part of the downfall of society, but it does make you an undiscriminating consumer. If you bought a pair of pants and you realized they weren't very good, but they had a few things you liked about them, would you buy more pants like that? Maybe, but most people would look for pants that included those elements they liked, but that were all-around a better fit. That's true of most purchases, but a lot of people seem unwilling to extend that kind of discerning spending to entertainment. And that's the only way to encourage, not "better" films, but films that you like.
We vote with our dollars spent, and too many people seem willing to vote for products and services that they don't really like without deep reservations or misgivings. That's the problem as I see it anyway.
There is a problem with your pants metaphor. You can try a pair of pants on before you buy it. You can't do the same with a movie (legally). The only honest way to judge whether a movie is good or not is to go see it, but you have already spent money on it sight unseen. You can't depend on reviews cause they are all filtered through the experince of the reviewer. You also can't rely on your friends word of mouth since I for one know that there are movies my friends love that I hate and vise versa. So that leaves us back at square one. How do we tell the movie companies we don't like a movie without offhandedly dismissing it without ever seeing it? I think cat has the only viable option which is not go see the sequel though that assumes there will be one to go see.
Well, if you know your friends, then generally you can get a pretty good idea of what a movie is going to be like from their reactions. For example, if my friend Hank pans a movie because he said it was boring, I know not to take that at face value, since he doesn't have the patience for deep films. However, if my friend James tells me the movie is boring, then I give that more credence. On the flip side of that, Hank has a great appreciation for impressive visuals, and so on.
the movie is a sequel to a film that was relatively well received by both critics and audiences alike. Rotten Tomatoes gave the first one around a 50% or so, which isn't really that bad, all things considering. I saw the first one and liked it a lot, and still want to see the sequel regardless of word of mouth. Therein lies the issue with this debate here. If you liked the first one, there's not much reason to not see the second one.
I've noticed the cynicism on this thread as well, but it can go both ways. I've seen movies I loved get totally bashed on this forum, while movies I thought were terrible get mostly praise. Just off the top of my head, I really like X-Men 3, but a vast majority here hate it. Same with Ang Lee's Hulk. On the flip side, I absolutely hated Indiana Jones 4, while most people here loved it. I was a bit torn with Watchmen, thinking it was only good in portions and weak overall as a movie, but was surprised to see almost everyone here give it praise.
Strange world we live in. :P
whereas I liked most of those movies you mentioned. :p
Quote from: Ajax on July 08, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 08, 2009, 04:56:04 PMIf you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine. But if you're just settling for it being good enough, because it's this year's big movie, or finding small elements to like in an otherwise flawed whole - which is what I've mostly been hearing about Transformers 2 - it still doesn't make you uneducated, or an idiot, or part of the downfall of society, but it does make you an undiscriminating consumer. If you bought a pair of pants and you realized they weren't very good, but they had a few things you liked about them, would you buy more pants like that? Maybe, but most people would look for pants that included those elements they liked, but that were all-around a better fit. That's true of most purchases, but a lot of people seem unwilling to extend that kind of discerning spending to entertainment. And that's the only way to encourage, not "better" films, but films that you like.
We vote with our dollars spent, and too many people seem willing to vote for products and services that they don't really like without deep reservations or misgivings. That's the problem as I see it anyway.
There is a problem with your pants metaphor. You can try a pair of pants on before you buy it. You can't do the same with a movie (legally). The only honest way to judge whether a movie is good or not is to go see it, but you have already spent money on it sight unseen. You can't depend on reviews cause they are all filtered through the experince of the reviewer. You also can't rely on your friends word of mouth since I for one know that there are movies my friends love that I hate and vise versa. So that leaves us back at square one. How do we tell the movie companies we don't like a movie without offhandedly dismissing it without ever seeing it? I think cat has the only viable option which is not go see the sequel though that assumes there will be one to go see.
The entertainment equivalent of trying on a pair of pants is finding people who's opinions you
do trust on that type of entertainment, whether that's friends, reviewers, aggregates of reviews like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic or something else. It's not foolproof, but then, neither is trying on pants.
The performance of sequels has come to be a measure of the quality of the previous film in a series for a few reasons: big films put such a marketing blitz out that most of the people going to see a film in theatres see it in its first week, and big films often embargo reviewers from printing anything before the film is in wide-release. If the previous film in a series was good, in the absence of contradicting information, its fans will go out to see the next film in large numbers - the factor I blame the large box offices (the largest in their respective series) of X-men 3 & Spider-man 3 on. Wolverine, in many ways X-men 4, may have suffered as much from the reception of 3 as it did from the internet leak & from poor word of mouth on the film itself, and I imagine Spider-man 4 will have an uphill climb in proving it's better than 3 was, and may still take in less money than 3 did.
Quote from: Talavar on July 08, 2009, 04:56:04 PM
If you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine. But if you're just settling for it being good enough, because it's this year's big movie, or finding small elements to like in an otherwise flawed whole - which is what I've mostly been hearing about Transformers 2 - it still doesn't make you uneducated, or an idiot, or part of the downfall of society, but it does make you an undiscriminating consumer. If you bought a pair of pants and you realized they weren't very good, but they had a few things you liked about them, would you buy more pants like that? Maybe, but most people would look for pants that included those elements they liked, but that were all-around a better fit. That's true of most purchases, but a lot of people seem unwilling to extend that kind of discerning spending to entertainment. And that's the only way to encourage, not "better" films, but films that you like.
no-one's claiming they're "settling" for the movie, it's been said by multiple posters, myself included, that they enjoyed the movie, which is an apparant impossibility because of apparently how attrocious it is, saying things like, and yes I adlib slightly, films like the transformers "arent aimed at us, they're aimed at them" is a pretty wide accusation to make, one of many comments indicating the impression that people who would enjoy the movie are somehow of a lower standard, which would make me more prone to question the kind of person who would publicly enforce this somewhat ignorant stereotype of a "them" over a simple matter of personal taste.
(not aimed directly at the poster who made the us/them comment, it's a general thing between ALOT of the posts).
slating a film off is one thing, freedom of speech and right to oppinion and all, but slating off a film and generalising the people who would enjoy said film in such a negative manner is a pretty shameful act.
I suppose it's another netiquette issue, people forget that things they say on an internet forum may be read by people they shed in an unfavourable light upon, and in such dont realise they're insulting people untill someone points it out.
Now UB, most of the posts I've read of people who enjoyed the film indicated that they didn't necessarily think it was a "good" movie, but that they enjoyed the action, or something along those lines. Several of the people who have responded favorably to the movie have said that they DID wish that several things had been different about it. I think it would be fair to say that they are "settling" for the movie if they weren't 100% happy with it. As Talavar said, though, they got their money's worth if they enjoyed it. Good for them. That being said, it isn't like I've never done that myself. I settled for RotK in the theaters, thinking that the extended edition would make up for its shortcomings. Turned out I was wrong, but still, the point stands. :P
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 09, 2009, 12:13:48 AM
Now UB, most of the posts I've read of people who enjoyed the film indicated that they didn't necessarily think it was a "good" movie, but that they enjoyed the action, or something along those lines. Several of the people who have responded favorably to the movie have said that they DID wish that several things had been different about it. I think it would be fair to say that they are "settling" for the movie if they weren't 100% happy with it. As Talavar said, though, they got their money's worth if they enjoyed it. Good for them. That being said, it isn't like I've never done that myself. I settled for RotK in the theaters, thinking that the extended edition would make up for its shortcomings. Turned out I was wrong, but still, the point stands. :P
No it isn't fair to say that. Because some people may be 100% happy with a movie IN SPITE OF its shortcomings. It all comes from my original assertions of what do you expect out of a movie and what do you consider entertainment. The term 'settling' infers acceptance of a lower standard vs. personal taste.
That's like saying you settled for your GF because others said she was too short, or too fat, or not bright enough. Heck somethings they say, may even be true in your eyes as well. But you would never say you settled.... or would you say you love her in spite of... or you just love her and the opinoons of others don't matter.
But... I probably shouldn't be surprised. People who think so highly of thier own opinions, often take the stance some have in this thread and others like it. People need to realize personal opinions and preferences are just that. And just because others like, accept, tolerate, etc something the cynics deam is beneath them... only speaks of the cynics own jaded standards and not the supposed sub-standards of others.
And I thought LotR:RotK was a very good movie
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/i_am_a_brainiac.html (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/i_am_a_brainiac.html)
I'm a proud Brainiac
QuoteBy Roger Ebert on July 5, 2009 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (708) | TrackBacks (0) [/b]
Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger... your an old fart! John C
Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment. There have, however been some disagreements that I thought were reasonable. These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good. In that case. Michael Bay is your man. If you enjoyed the movie, there is no way I can say you're wrong. About yourself, anyway.
[...]
[mod edit]
Look, there is nothing wrong with judging a movie we haven't seen. It's a necessity for movie-goers. Most of us don't have the luxury in time or money to see every movie that comes to the screen. When I choose to see A over B, it's usually because I am judging A to be better than B, in terms of its entertainment value. (And, though it should go without saying, I mean it's entertainment value to me.) I usually have to make that judgment before seeing either one and making that judgment doesn't make me a snob or a cynic or (at the other end) a rube or a Pollyanna.
Furthermore, neither does making judgments based on others' opinions of the movies. We all use the information we have available, tempered by understanding of its context and potential biases. No one who has to make choices about movies goes in without some pre-judgment of the movie, even if that judgment is only that the movie is likely to be worth their $10 or whatever. (And, the value judgment we make includes the social context surrounding the outing. I have gone to movies fully expecting the movie to stink but thinking that it would be fun to see it with my friends, even if only to laugh at its mediocrity.) Even the trailer for a movie is a review of sorts (saying "Here is what this movie is like!"), though it is one we understand to be deliberately biased. Furthermore, even people who say, "I am waiting for the DVD, so I am not judging now" aren't exactly correct, because they are at least judging that it isn't worth it for them to see in the theater. If they thought it was the best movie of all time, they would likely not want to wait, so they are judging that it's somewhere below that quality.
Speaking perhaps only for myself, I don't particularly like populism ("it must be good because so many people like it"). And, I don't like anti-populism ("it must stink because so many people like it"). I feel pretty much the same way about elitism ("it must be good because only a select few appreciate it") and anti-elitism ("it must stink because only snobs like it"). And all reviews have potential problems. So, I respect the view that it's tough to come to a conclusive judgment about a movie without seeing it yourself. But, it's also true that you can come to a perfectly useful judgment about a movie by listening to others' critiques, calibrated, to the best of your ability, to your own tastes. In my view, that judgment might not be a final call on the matter, but it often is in practical terms, because there are only so many opportunities to revisit it. And, doing so doesn't make you a populist or an elitist or one of their opponents.
Further, it's not necessarily snobby to say that the success of something that you judge to have low quality is a sign that many people aren't great judges of quality or aren't discerning consumers, by your standard. I once heard someone declare that the the world "must love garbage" because a certain corn chip had more shelf space than the one he liked. I don't think he considered himself among the culinary elite. And, people can make mind-boggling choices and still not be stupid. I've met people who admitted to buying a "pet rock" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock) back in the day; they weren't all idiots. Moreover, it's also true that lots of people go see the weekend's "big movie" without spending much time looking over reviews or listening to word of mouth because they are pre-judging based on the trailer, or their enjoyment of the first movie, or whatever else.
On the other hand, the fact that a lot of people see a movie simply does not mean that most of them liked it. I usually check movie listings at moviefone, which has links to critics' reviews and user reviews. I don't usually even bother looking at the user reviews because there are too many of them and they are all over the map. But, it is pretty rare for such a widely-viewed movie to have as low an average user review as this one (less than 1/5 stars). I don't take that as anything other than confirmation that a movie's ticket sales are neither an indicator that it's good nor an indication that people have no taste.
Anyway, there has been a fair amount of heat in this thread on both sides. I'm not comfortable with the idea that people who liked the movie are all due for remedial instruction. And, I also note that it's a similar gross generalization to say that people who think the movie will stink or that Hollywood often lets quality slip are all cynical snobs. Neither view seems all that accurate and both (well intended or not) come across as a little rude.
Quote from: UnfluffyBunny on July 08, 2009, 11:41:34 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 08, 2009, 04:56:04 PM
If you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine. But if you're just settling for it being good enough, because it's this year's big movie, or finding small elements to like in an otherwise flawed whole - which is what I've mostly been hearing about Transformers 2 - it still doesn't make you uneducated, or an idiot, or part of the downfall of society, but it does make you an undiscriminating consumer. If you bought a pair of pants and you realized they weren't very good, but they had a few things you liked about them, would you buy more pants like that? Maybe, but most people would look for pants that included those elements they liked, but that were all-around a better fit. That's true of most purchases, but a lot of people seem unwilling to extend that kind of discerning spending to entertainment. And that's the only way to encourage, not "better" films, but films that you like.
no-one's claiming they're "settling" for the movie, it's been said by multiple posters, myself included, that they enjoyed the movie, which is an apparant impossibility because of apparently how attrocious it is, saying things like, and yes I adlib slightly, films like the transformers "arent aimed at us, they're aimed at them" is a pretty wide accusation to make, one of many comments indicating the impression that people who would enjoy the movie are somehow of a lower standard, which would make me more prone to question the kind of person who would publicly enforce this somewhat ignorant stereotype of a "them" over a simple matter of personal taste.
(not aimed directly at the poster who made the us/them comment, it's a general thing between ALOT of the posts).
slating a film off is one thing, freedom of speech and right to oppinion and all, but slating off a film and generalising the people who would enjoy said film in such a negative manner is a pretty shameful act.
I suppose it's another netiquette issue, people forget that things they say on an internet forum may be read by people they shed in an unfavourable light upon, and in such dont realise they're insulting people untill someone points it out.
I don't think it's an impossibility that people genuinely liked the movie; I opened my statement with "If you went to Transformers 2 and genuinely enjoyed it, then you got your money's worth, and that's fine," after all. But some people in this thread have very much suggested that they're settling for Transformers 2, and I've heard similar from friends who have gone to see it - namely that it had cool parts, but was generally not so good.
Hmm... I should probably post something. However, I am a snob and know it. I'm not ashamed. I do have my views and opinions. I do believe my taste in things is slightly above others. Why? I don't know. Maybe how I was raised. Though, my mom did raise me well. Hmm... I think I'll look into that.
Right Stumpy, I agree that there is undue heat here. Thank you for a well reasoned post with a number of excellent points.
Exactly Talavar. If you don't think the statement above applies to you...then maybe it doesn't! Neither he nor I said that EVERYONE who liked the movie is settling.
I'll post more later when I can phrase it properly.
Quote from: thanoson on July 09, 2009, 04:07:39 AM
I do believe my taste in things is slightly above others.
So does everyone else. How can you judge how good someone else's taste is except by simply comparing it to your own? That's why saying things like "in my opinion" is really just a waste of words used to keep people who don't understand that anything that isn't necessarily a fact is an opinion. I can be mean and yell at people for liking terrible (in my opinion :P) movies or music or whatever but that won't stop them from liking Transformers 2 or R&B/rap/country/metal. I just noticed that Transformers 2 was a huge, long, depressing, disappointing waste of time and thought I should warn people who want to see it because they liked Transformers 1 because I really liked the first one and this evil satan of a crappy movie put a black spot on my heart and it hasn't beat the same since.
I enjoyed Hudson Hawk. Also, Ice Pirates.
There. I said it.
Quote from: BWPS on July 09, 2009, 04:22:03 AM
Quote from: thanoson on July 09, 2009, 04:07:39 AM
I do believe my taste in things is slightly above others.
So does everyone else. How can you judge how good someone else's taste is except by simply comparing it to your own? That's why saying things like "in my opinion" is really just a waste of words used to keep people who don't understand that anything that isn't necessarily a fact is an opinion. I can be mean and yell at people for liking terrible (in my opinion :P) movies or music or whatever but that won't stop them from liking Transformers 2 or R&B/rap/country/metal. I just noticed that Transformers 2 was a huge, long, depressing, disappointing waste of time and thought I should warn people who want to see it because they liked Transformers 1 because I really liked the first one and this evil satan of a crappy movie put a black spot on my heart and it hasn't beat the same since.
Ya know, the more BWPS posts I read, the more I'm confused. Do you like anything? Anything at all? Cause the negativity you throw out is staggering at times.
Just utterly staggering.
He likes the Misadventures of Flapjack
Quote from: Verfall on July 09, 2009, 06:22:18 AM
Ya know, the more BWPS posts I read, the more I'm confused. Do you like anything? Anything at all? Cause the negativity you throw out is staggering at times.
Just utterly staggering.
I get left 4 dead flashbacks....
"Is there anything you dont hate?"
"Vests... I dont hate vests.."
I enjoyed Showgirls and Reform school girls. Showgirls because it was a great comedy. Reform School Girls because Wendy O Williams from the plasmatics was supposed to be a teenager.
Quote from: Jakew on July 09, 2009, 05:03:04 AM
I enjoyed Hudson Hawk. Also, Ice Pirates.
There. I said it.
Hey, Ice Pirates was a great movie....GREAT.... ;)
Quote from: Ares_God_of_War on July 09, 2009, 06:55:59 AM
He likes the Misadventures of Flapjack
It's true, I love it.
Quote
Ya know, the more BWPS posts I read, the more I'm confused. Do you like anything? Anything at all? Cause the negativity you throw out is staggering at times.
Just utterly staggering.
I like more things than I hate except maybe when it comes to music. Maybe you just don't notice my positive posts because they're less noticeable or maybe you've only read this thread which is about how much I hate Transformers 2. I liked every major action movie that came out last year, even Hancock and Indy4. Even Max Payne and Doomsday I liked. I liked Transformers 1. I like most video games. I do like many things and I don't think I hesitate to say so. I'm sorry if my negativity is staggering, I guess. But this movie was the worst I've seen and I really think it deserves it. Also, I just nerd out on things and over exaggerate.
hmmm... I've read this thread through, and I have to say... And even though I haven't seen it yet, I cannot imagine you guys having sufficient cause for complaint against this movie. Not in the same year this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Evolution) came out. A little perspective before we start crusades about how TRANSFORMERS is dumbing down media, mk?
Hollywood has dumbed down the media a longed time ago.
I'm not afraid to say that their are more and more good tv show in the us, and less and less good movies.
Hollywood effectively swaps the role of tv and cinema. Now cinema has become cheap entertainment and the only "cultural" things can be found on tv. ok that's not totally true. but there use to be a time where documentary was just one other type of movie. now it can only be seen on tv, with a few rare exception.
And about that "it's just an opinion" argument...****. I don't know when this became a social consensus, but opinion DO have value. Every opinion are not equal.
So saying you can like a crappy movie because "it's just your opinion" that it sucks is not a valid point either. You're alowed to have bad taste, but don't you dare tell me that everything has the same value because taste is a matter of opinion. Good non-cerebral entertaining movie exist.
exhibit A: Ghostbuster. Good actors, good dialogue, good scenario, nicely shot, amazing special effect at time of release,... Why is it that we don't see some of these anymore? Because people settle down for worse. If a good movie and a bad movie score the same, guess what kind of movie will be produced next?
edit: forgot the censorship again, meh
Quote from: Trelau on July 09, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Hollywood has dumbed down the media a longed time ago.
I'm not afraid to say that their are more and more good tv show in the us, and less and less good movies.
Hollywood effectively swaps the role of tv and cinema. Now cinema has become cheap entertainment and the only "cultural" things can be found on tv. ok that's not totally true. but there use to be a time where documentary was just one other type of movie. now it can only be seen on tv, with a few rare exception.
And about that "it's just an opinion" argument...****. I don't know when this became a social consensus, but opinion DO have value. Every opinion are not equal.
So saying you can like a crappy movie because "it's just your opinion" that it sucks is not a valid point either. You're alowed to have bad taste, but don't you dare tell me that everything has the same value because taste is a matter of opinion. Good non-cerebral entertaining movie exist.
exhibit A: Ghostbuster. Good actors, good dialogue, good scenario, nicely shot, amazing special effect at time of release,... Why is it that we don't see some of these anymore? Because people settle down for worse. If a good movie and a bad movie score the same, guess what kind of movie will be produced next?
edit: forgot the censorship again, meh
IMO... there is just so much wrong with these statements. And since my opinion has more value than yours, everyone should recognize I'm right.
And that's exactly the kind of "opinion" i was talking about. An opinion that is base on fact and/or on some kind of reflection as more value than on who isn't.
You're trying reductio ad absurdo on me and you haven't even understand my argument.
I'm saying that the fact some people like crummy movies doesn't make theme less crummy. But the FACTS that the actors can't act, the dialogue are badly written, some characters are racist stereotype, the role of the scenario is just to promote the army, the special effect are are less good than the first one,etc.... THAT makes it a bad movie. It's a fact. That you decide to call an opinion because it doesn't suit you.
I could say the same thing about reality tv and people press (the paparazzy kind, not sure how it's called in the us). The fact that millions of people read it and enjoy it doesn't make it less trashy and less shamefull. In the opinion of the readers/watchers it's "enjoyable "fun" or worse of it "i only look at it to mock it, but i know it's bad". So you can say it's only my opinion, but i consider it a fact that those are worthless human product, actually more demeaning to the watcher/reader than to the writer/producer: just compare it to anything else in the entertainment industry.
Let's take this the other way around. I hated the first Transformer. I'm still convinced that that movie is not worth watching. BUT, unlike you, i've actually read the argument of the otherside and I recognise some quality to that movie. So I still say that I hate it. But not that it's a bad one. So i recognise than in that case my opinion is just that: an opinion. And the fact is that this movie isn't as bad as i say it is.
But we could talk about this for hours. You're obviously not gonna change your mind, and i disagree with almost everything you've said so far on the subject.
Let's watch our language, gentlemen.
Quote from: Trelau on July 09, 2009, 08:55:27 PM
And that's exactly the kind of "opinion" i was talking about. An opinion that is base on fact and/or on some kind of reflection as more value than on who isn't.
You're trying reductio ad absurdo on me and you haven't even understand my argument.
I'm saying that the fact some people like crummy movies doesn't make theme less crummy. But the FACTS that the actors can't act, the dialogue are badly written, some characters are racist stereotype, the role of the scenario is just to promote the army, the special effect are are less good than the first one,etc.... THAT makes it a bad movie. It's a fact. That you decide to call an opinion because it doesn't suit you.
Let's take this the other way around. I hated the first Transformer. I'm still convinced that that movie is not worth watching. BUT, unlike you, i've actually read the argument of the otherside and I recognise some quality to that movie. So I still say that I hate it. But not that it's a bad one.
But we could talk about this for hours. You're obiously not gonna change your mind, and i disagree with almost everything you've said so far on the subject.
Everyone's opinion does count if it's stated right. It's crap/it's good is useless without explaining why. Chances are I look for different things in a movie than you do, hence I get a different value out of it. Isn't the most important thing that a person enjoys a movie no matter how much it stinks in anyone else's opinion. Let me have my crappy movies.
So...Megan Fox looked great in that movie.
Well worth the price of admission alone. ^_^
Quote from: Rick Battlemage on July 09, 2009, 09:14:38 PM
Chances are I look for different things in a movie than you do, hence I get a different value out of it. Isn't the most important thing that a person enjoys a movie no matter how much it stinks in anyone else's opinion. Let me have my crappy movies.
Well that, i can't argue with, an i totally agree. I like crappy things to, and don't hide from it.
So, sorry if i got "over-excited", i didn't mean to be insulting.
My opinion: Transformers 2 is not worth the venom herein. It's a just a movie, and not even one with Barakapool. Chill.
@ Trelau.
I'm presuming english isnt your first language so forgive me if i've misconstrued some of what you wrote, but alot of the sentances seemed redundant / non-sensical.
from what I understand, I believe you're trying to say, is the look of "I accept you may enjoy this movie even tho I consider it "crappy" " is not acceptable based on the fact, if the movie is crappy, people shouldnt be able to voice that they believe the contrary. (hereby bringing out the issue, who would be an authority to declare wether a movie is crappy or not, I certainly see no single poster in this thread, dare I say this forum who i'd declare an expert over all to be deemed with that decision)
If this is infact your belief there-in lies it's own flaw, you cannot assertain that an oppionion may or may not be deemed worthless by some higher decision of fact if there is no base fact beyond the oppinion of the person making the statement.
by your own reasoning, it's far broader accepted that a person is entitled to their oppinion and the right to believe that oppinion in the bare face of any who would disagree. and therefore your own reasoning would render your arguement null and void.
on an ad-note, I dont believe making a statement that HQ hasnt read he other side of the arguement would be a fair judgement to make, reading his posts he directly reflects and responds to comments made by others, using a comment like that to bolster your own arguement isn't going to credit you any.
as a final note, the epitome of crappy movies is the B-movie, and without those, we wouldnt have bruce campbell (hail to the king baby)
Hey, don't forget Bill Paxton. That guy is very underated.
It's clear not everyone is going to walk away with the same opinions about the movie, and that's fine. But, let's keep things personally respectful and in line with the forum rules.
I feel like much of the debate on this thread could and should go into its own separate thread. But whatever.
As someone in the business of making movies, I want to point out a few things.
First of all, and I think everyone here is aware of this, most of the movies "made by Hollywood" are made for one reason: to make money. The ones that are not are made because of things like contract obligations between the studios and the actors or the studios and a director.
Second, there are bad movies that get made that look great on paper. And there are bad scripts that get made to look quite good on screen. Having said that, there are good scripts that get butchered during production either by the director or by the studios. Transformers 2 was a great idea on paper. Rather or not the issue with the final product were choices made by Michael Bay or choices forced by the studio is only speculation. The "Ghettobots" were likely a choice made by Bay in response to audiences getting upset about the death of Jazz in the first movie. An intentionally bad choice sometimes get made by a director as a response to something forced on him by the studio. The results is usually a train wreck. Transformers 2 is an excellent example of this kind of train wreck.
Third, the best movies being made right now are not being made within "the traditional studio system". Most of the better films I have seen are coming from "the independent scene". That is to say, the better told stories are being made for less money by filmmaker's who are not working for the studio. Some of these films are picked up by studios and get some sort of release. Some of them will not likely be seen outside the film festival circuit unless they get some sort of direct to DVD deal.
@Trelau,
Hollywood has not dumbed down the media. The media has dumbed down Hollywood. Audiences have been complicit in their aid of that dumbing down. Instead of seeking out and putting their money toward "good movies", they have instead salivated over whatever the studios put out.
Various filmmakers have managed to thrive despite this and proven they can make money for the studios. Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan, Robert Rodriquez, Quintin Tarrentino, Danny Boyle all fall into this category. Some have proven that they can make money in the past but now so so without regards to the quality of the movies they are making, Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg are in that group. (Though, it's kinda sad to put Spielberg in that group. I largely do so because of how disappointing that his past few films have been.) And George Lucas? Don't get me started!
I could sit here and rant about this all day if I wanted. However, I have gotten two production related calls while typing this post. I have a meeting in about 90 minutes about a project.
not to revive this topic with the venom spitting, but I finally got a chance to see the movie. Everyone has bashed this movie so much, that I was honestly expecting something as bad as Ultraviolet. Thankfully, it wasn't even close.
In fact, it entertained me and kept my interest. And I think I enjoyed it a lot more thanks to everyone saying how awful it was. I'll admit, the movie is nowhere as good as the first one, but it is also nowhere near my top ten worst movies list. It suffers from too many comic moments and stereotypes and plot holes, but it still somehow remained entertaining.
Ultraviolet still remains king of the worst movies I've ever seen, and still to this day remains the only movie I've seen in theaters that I actually wanted to walk out on. Transformers 2 wasn't nearly that bad.
What about Aeon Flux and In the Name of the Rose? Or whatever that Uwe Boll movie was with ninjas fighting orcs or whatever they were. Does it rank with those two?