PDA

View Full Version : Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Good?



aurora
06-26-2009, 02:09 PM
OK, I'm royally pissed off over a test question so came in to see what people thought about Transformers 2 and see nothing on it. People to caught up in Ed, Farrah, and Michael or what?

So is it good or ????
Sadly I won't get out to see it till next week, grrrrr.

AdamAvenali
06-26-2009, 02:29 PM
i didn't like it as much as the first one, but i'm just a general transformers fan so i still geeked out over it haha

Kuzey
06-26-2009, 02:38 PM
There is already a thread:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99771

Kuzey

byte_fx
06-26-2009, 10:41 PM
No sense in letting this thread go to waste.

We absolutely, positively HATED it.

Boring, stupid script and direction. Animation was kind of okay but there's been much better posted here and elsewhere. The transformer steam locomotive comes to mind.

Several people demanded refunds which were refused. Instead each received two unlimited ticket vouchers and a $10 concession stand voucher.

byte_fx

Nicolas Jordan
06-30-2009, 09:39 PM
I finally went out to see this movie only because I am a Transformers fan. After I was done watching it I would have to compare the movie experience to pigging out on a bunch of junk food and then feeling sick after it's over. The more I think about the worse it seems. I'm not a fan of Micheal Bays close up shots either, they are just one big blur of something but your not really sure what it is. I think they should just stop the movies here. They are very forgetable movies. The second one only makes the first one look worse than it really is. I always thought if a sequel is done right it can make the previous film look better but if it's done wrong it can make the previous film look even worse than it really is. I give Transformers2 5/10.

Nicolas Jordan
06-30-2009, 09:46 PM
Several people demanded refunds which were refused. Instead each received two unlimited ticket vouchers and a $10 concession stand voucher.

byte_fx

Yep, the squeaky wheel always seems to get the grease. I'm the guy who waits quietly behind the whiny customer and insists that if the whiny customers can get $10 vouchers then it's only fair if everyone gets them including the customers who never complained. :)

akademus
07-01-2009, 01:31 AM
OMG, Saw it last night. Apart from few interesting turnpoints in the story line, I kept wondering why they need to demonstrate such power in VFX and who the heck put all those screws there :)

biliousfrog
07-01-2009, 02:25 AM
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

No reason to watch it after reading that

Matt
07-01-2009, 03:14 AM
Michael Bay is a chancer, how does he keep getting work? I mean, really, anyone explain it?

Matt
07-01-2009, 03:18 AM
Several people demanded refunds which were refused. Instead each received two unlimited ticket vouchers and a $10 concession stand voucher.

Why should a cinema give refunds on naff films? They only show them, they don't make them, nor do they guarantee script / acting quality!

You pays your money you takes your chance.

- - -

I think I'll give this one a miss then.

biliousfrog
07-01-2009, 03:48 AM
Why should a cinema give refunds on naff films? They only show them, they don't make them, nor do they guarantee script / acting quality!

You pays your money you takes your chance.

- - -

I think I'll give this one a miss then.

:agree:

I complained about the audio/visual quality once and got some free tickets but if the film's crap, unlucky! If you're going to complain, write to the producers, script writers, director etc.

Iain
07-01-2009, 03:54 AM
Is there even a question about this?

The reviews were bad, the original was boring and stupid, the lead actor is charisma free, the director turns out one bad (but big) film after another, hmmmm will I go see it? ;D

More proof that good cinema needs much more than VFX and a cute girl.

Go and see The Hangover instead.

Iain
07-01-2009, 03:59 AM
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

No reason to watch it after reading that

That's genius! :D

Cageman
07-01-2009, 05:23 AM
That's genius! :D

Not entirely... I watched the movie and many of the things he mention in that "article" are deliberately written in a way that leaves things out. He clearly didn't like the movie, but many things that he has written, is based on either not watching the movie completely, or making things up just to make it look worse than what it is.

EDIT:

Example:

"What follows is the most spectacular part of the movie, as Sam and Mikaela try to run the several miles back to the military camp during a massive Decepticon attack where the military has dropped Optimus Prime's corpse.

Why is that awesome? They could drive back in one of the Autobots and be there in a minute or two.
They don't do that.

What?
They walk.

Of course they do. And I assume the Autobots just mysteriously disappear again until a second before a Decepticon is about to kill Sam.
Yes. Exactly."

That is just pure bs... There are 4 autobots with them, however, during an intense chase where Starscream and another decepticon fires at the 4 autobots, they (the autobots) decides to let Sam and the girl out by using the dust as a natural smokescreen. The 4 autobots will continue in another direction to lure Starscream and the other decepticon away from Sam. They do indeed have a long way to go on foot, but at least there is a very good explanation/series of events that leads up to it.

*sigh*

Iain
07-01-2009, 05:40 AM
I think you missed the main element of the article which was humour.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-01-2009, 05:42 AM
:agree:

I complained about the audio/visual quality once and got some free tickets but if the film's crap, unlucky! If you're going to complain, write to the producers, script writers, director etc.

Walking out in the middle of a movie and asking for your money back makes some sense. But expecting a refund after sitting through the entire film is ridiculous. It's like the idiots who devour their dinners at restaurents and THEN complain.

If it was so bad why did you eat it?

frantbk
07-01-2009, 07:05 AM
I saw the Transformers yesterday. While I don't think it was crap, I didn't care for the two stupid brother/rapper bots. Also I did see any need for 30x more transformers running around planet earth. Also the leaderships earned, and this has always been you path in life moment was stupid.

It would have been better with less, and much of the high quality composting from the original was missing, a lot of the shots looked CGI. It was OK for a remake of the original with an add hour of another story tacked on.

Ooo, and the college room-mate should have been dropped after the deli hook - wasted screen time with him after that.

AdamAvenali
07-01-2009, 07:11 AM
I didn't care for the two stupid brother/rapper bots.

I could not agree with someone more than I do with you and that statement.

Matt
07-01-2009, 11:27 AM
I didn't care for the two stupid brother/rapper bots.

Is this the Transformer's Jar Jar Binks?

Annoying pointless character thrown in for the 'kiddies'?

AdamAvenali
07-01-2009, 11:28 AM
Is this the Transformer's Jar Jar Binks?
Annoying pointless character thrown in for the 'kiddies'?

you are not the first person i have heard relate them to Jar Jar haha

Cageman
07-01-2009, 12:47 PM
I think you missed the main element of the article which was humour.

Ahh.. well... humor based on ignorance isn't really what I would call fun, but hey... each to his own.

:)

BeeVee
07-01-2009, 03:45 PM
I went to see it today (six year-old son for reason), and have to say that I think that this YouTube video captures the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqN_wCK9hM and doesn't take 2.5 hours to do so.

B

Cageman
07-01-2009, 04:05 PM
I went to see it today (six year-old son for reason), and have to say that I think that this YouTube video captures the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqN_wCK9hM and doesn't take 2.5 hours to do so.

B

LOL

Seriously though, the movie is about one million times better than that clip.

Andyjaggy
07-01-2009, 04:11 PM
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

No reason to watch it after reading that

Oh that was great.

Pavlov
07-01-2009, 04:18 PM
mh. these movies are sure spectacular and funny, but in the end you bring home only the memory of tons of explosions and unfolded metals. Beside hi-spectacular sequences these movies are non significative. Same for latest Terminator and about a dozens of movies of this kind.


Paolo

aurora
07-01-2009, 06:10 PM
Well, considering the over whelming, uhmm love(?) LOL for the movie sounds like I'll take a friend up on her offer to go climbing this weekend instead. Will deff find a way to go see Ice Age though.

frantbk
07-01-2009, 07:19 PM
Is this the Transformer's Jar Jar Binks?

Annoying pointless character thrown in for the 'kiddies'?


My brother said his number 1 fear for Transformers 2 was Spielberg would get try and put his mark on the film. After watching Spielberg for the last 20 years I think most of the cheesy/dumb parts could prove my brother right. The Sector 7 agent living with his mother at the family deli. The A**hole presidential government man that was dumped out of the plane ( I thought the actor did a good job acting, but what was the point?). All of the cheesy scenes just made me think Spielberg.

I don't know about you guys, but LaBeouf screaming like a little girl in the dorm when he's attacked by the bot-broad. I thought he hit his stride as an actor.

toby
07-02-2009, 03:06 AM
My brother said his number 1 fear for Transformers 2 was Spielberg would get try and put his mark on the film. After watching Spielberg for the last 20 years I think most of the cheesy/dumb parts could prove my brother right
Be..eecause... Bay... makes better movies... than Spielberg? :confused:


http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

No reason to watch it after reading that
I almost choked to death on my own laughter after reading about the 7 Primes in the clouds. "Moving on!"
:ohmy:

toby
07-02-2009, 03:59 AM
Hollywood doesn't give a $%!+ about art, they only care about the SIZE of the audience. If it doesn't target a WIDE audience, it doesn't get funded. And by far the biggest problem with movies is the STORY and how it's told. A good story is not extremely common, but for a good one to survive hollywood's white-washing to maximize the audience is extremely rare. Trans II entered production without having a story at all.

To find a good movie you have to look for directors that are big enough to do their own thing, yet don't do hollywood formula crap in the first place.

Iain
07-02-2009, 04:08 AM
Well, at least Spielberg is a director (for the Spielberg dislikers I can settle on "in the widest possible sense")

A director?!!

He's only the man behind some of the greatest moments in US cinema! I don't like a lot of his stuff but how can you dismiss Close Encounters, Jaws, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple etc etc?
All stunning visually and full of character and beauty.

Then there's his production involvement: The Goonies, Memoirs of a Geisha, just too many iconic films to mention.

It's so easy to put people down.

Matt
07-02-2009, 07:15 AM
This was the best bit in the entire film ...

Matt
07-02-2009, 07:28 AM
That's a nice set of wheels.

Yes it is Neverko, I wonder if I could get all the back wheels in.

:D

frantbk
07-02-2009, 07:45 AM
This was the best bit in the entire film ...

That shot we can agree on 100% :D :thumbsup:

frantbk
07-02-2009, 08:01 AM
A director?!!

He's only the man behind some of the greatest moments in US cinema! I don't like a lot of his stuff but how can you dismiss Close Encounters, Jaws, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple etc etc?
All stunning visually and full of character and beauty.

Then there's his production involvement: The Goonies, Memoirs of a Geisha, just too many iconic films to mention.

It's so easy to put people down.

Spielberg's time has come and gone. The last three movies Spielberg has directed has had nothing but shots from all of his other movies.

Close Encounters - lets believe in little green men

Jaws - Ok I'll give you that one.

Schindler's List - I think Schindler's actions during WWII speak louder then Spielberg's movie. Spielberg was just cashing in on someone else work - all things being equal as to who did the real work of saving Jews in WWII.

Jurassic Park - What the hell, the writer that created the book had nothing to do with any of Jurassic Park.

Indiana Jones - Which came from the Saturday movie Spielberg watched as a kid. The idea wasn't original to Spielberg.

Amistad - History had nothing to do with that? Amistad the person, who was a slave and went through all that trial and hardship had nothing to do with Spielberg cashing in on someone else hardship.

Saving Private Ryan - Yeah its such a epic story. The real story about that was that the U.S. Army sent a priest to pickup the last brother and ship him home. Saving Private Ryan is something of a bad joke about WWII.

The Color Purple - Once again, doesn't the writer have something to do with Spielberg cashing in on someone's work. Spielberg is good at cashing in on someone's ideas and work. He hasn't produced any ideas - he a user, not a creator of ideas.

ericsmith
07-02-2009, 08:42 AM
Spielberg is good at cashing in on someone's ideas and work. He hasn't produced any ideas - he a user, not a creator of ideas.

But that's typically the primary job of a director. Sure, there are some that write AND direct, but your argument would lead to the conclusion that any director that makes a movie from someone else's script is just riding on the coattails of someone else's creativity.

That's like saying that an animator is simply cashing in on the modeler, texturer, and riggers ideas and work. Unless he did every step of the process.

Directing is a complex discipline, and requires a ton of talent and experience. The problem is that it's one of those disciplines that if done right, should be completely transperent to the audience. So it's easy to dismiss the hard work and talent that a director brings to the party.

Eric

Jim_C
07-02-2009, 11:41 AM
He hasn't produced any ideas - he a user, not a creator of ideas.

You have narrow minded views on what a director does and is responsible for.
A story might exist on paper but it does not exist to our eye until someone creates it for such a medium.

Iain
07-02-2009, 12:16 PM
Schindler's List - I think Schindler's actions during WWII speak louder then Spielberg's movie. Spielberg was just cashing in on someone else work - all things being equal as to who did the real work of saving Jews in WWII.


I have to hand it to you-after some serious practice, you are the master of the inane post.

toby
07-02-2009, 03:48 PM
Sure, any schmuck can make a movie that earns world-wide critical acclaim, time after time after time.

Matt
07-02-2009, 05:38 PM
I think Spielberg is a genius director.

hazmat777
07-02-2009, 05:42 PM
But that's typically the primary job of a director. Sure, there are some that write AND direct, but your argument would lead to the conclusion that any director that makes a movie from someone else's script is just riding on the coattails of someone else's creativity.

That's like saying that an animator is simply cashing in on the modeler, texturer, and riggers ideas and work. Unless he did every step of the process.

Directing is a complex discipline, and requires a ton of talent and experience. The problem is that it's one of those disciplines that if done right, should be completely transperent to the audience. So it's easy to dismiss the hard work and talent that a director brings to the party.

Eric

Editing is also so crucial to the process, yet should be transparent as well. The best Cut is the one you don't even notice.

COBRASoft
07-02-2009, 05:59 PM
Just saw the movie. Very nice, a lot of action and nice girls, except robot one, talking about 'dangerous delicious' :D.

Hated only 1 part, Bee crying!!! BIG ROBOTS DON'T CRY!

Matt
07-02-2009, 06:10 PM
Was the old Decepticon SR71 voiced by Vinnie Jones?

That part just went on faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too long for my liking, and if it was our Vinnie, definitely the _wrong_ choice of voice there.

frantbk
07-02-2009, 06:40 PM
Spielberg is a rich old guy who's time has come and gone. Spielberg has been very good at making money, but most of his last movies Spielberg poached scenes from his old movies, over and over.

Spielberg is the King of formula movie making. Spielberg is also big on failure to live in the moment of the time period and has polluted all of his WWII movies with comments and concepts that would not have been talked about at that time. The simple fact is much of what Spielberg puts in his movies are revisionist writing. Case in point Empire of the Sun - Christian Bale calling the Mustang the Cadillac of the sky. That is a post war label that the Mustang did not have during WWII, and because the Mustang was built during the war Christian Bale as a kid in a prisoner of war camp since the beginning of the war would not have know much- if anything about the Mustang.

Spielberg couldn't pass a geography test if his life depended on it because many of his movies are geography challenged. Case in point War of the World - Tom Cruise is heading to Boston, but all the country filming is in Virgina. Why because Pennsylvania is too flat?
Close Encounters of the Third kind - Illinois and Indiana have 500-1000 foot mountains for Helicopters to fly around. I live Illinois so Spielberg and his alternate universe of geography is,...sad.

War of the Worlds: 120,000-180,000 lb jet crash lands on suburbia and there isn't a trench from the crash, nor are the surrounding houses burnt from jet fuel, and the jet broke up and didn't burn.

Spielberg is good at making money because he builds movies that live in an alternate universe.

Ooo. Saving Private Ryan: Tom Hanks and Tom Sizemore couldn't have been Rangers together at the Kasserine Pass and at Normandy because those Ranger units used in Algeria were part of the Anizo landing and were fighting in Italy during D-Day (Osprey Elite Series US ARMY Rangers & LRRP Units 1942-87) Any Rangers sent back to England to train the England formed Rangers units for D-Day were too chewed up from combat to pass muster for combat. If they had been combat physical Hanks & Sizemore would have been stuck in Italy (Osprey US ARMY Rangers & LRRP Units 1942-87).

Spielberg is a great director. Spielberg just sucks at history and geography. Spielberg is great at making money.

Matt
07-02-2009, 08:13 PM
Speaking of things from another planet, what the **** is this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uib4jqNac

toby
07-02-2009, 09:01 PM
Spielberg couldn't pass a geography test if his life depended on it because many of his movies are geography challenged. Case in point War of the World - Tom Cruise is heading to Boston, but all the country filming is in Virgina. Why because Pennsylvania is too flat?
Close Encounters of the Third kind - Illinois and Indiana have 500-1000 foot mountains for Helicopters to fly around. I live Illinois so Spielberg and his alternate universe of geography is,...sad.

War of the Worlds: 120,000-180,000 lb jet crash lands on suburbia and there isn't a trench from the crash, nor are the surrounding houses burnt from jet fuel, and the jet broke up and didn't burn.

Spielberg is good at making money because he builds movies that live in an alternate universe.

Ooo. Saving Private Ryan: Tom Hanks and Tom Sizemore couldn't have been Rangers together at the Kasserine Pass and at Normandy because those Ranger units used in Algeria were part of the Anizo landing and were fighting in Italy during D-Day (Osprey Elite Series US ARMY Rangers & LRRP Units 1942-87) Any Rangers sent back to England to train the England formed Rangers units for D-Day were too chewed up from combat to pass muster for combat. If they had been combat physical Hanks & Sizemore would have been stuck in Italy (Osprey US ARMY Rangers & LRRP Units 1942-87).

Spielberg is a great director. Spielberg just sucks at history and geography. Spielberg is great at making money.
Wow, you may as well complain that something was shot on a set rather than on the real location, or that a 1975 Ford Granada was used on story that was set in 1974. But what makes you think Bay is so accurate? Didn't you see Armageddon?? It was an absolute joke. "we'll send oil rig workers into space because they already know how to use the drill" ;D It was PACKED with junk like that.

I find most of Spielberg's movies kinda tame, and I don't like all the outdoor shots he does on indoor sets, but I'll give him credit for making *unforgettable* movies that change the way movies are made, and that millions of people, and most critics, love. Partially because that's so rare, you must to be extraordinary to do it.

toby
07-02-2009, 09:05 PM
Btw, look forward to Avatar being what Transformers coulda been with a good director!

DiedonD
07-03-2009, 04:39 AM
Would most of us know about these pieces of history if Spielberg had not shown us? AND... did such a magnificent job of doing so?


You mean you didnt knew about that great ordeal prior to the movie?

frantbk
07-03-2009, 06:50 AM
But that's typically the primary job of a director. Sure, there are some that write AND direct, but your argument would lead to the conclusion that any director that makes a movie from someone else's script is just riding on the coattails of someone else's creativity.

That's like saying that an animator is simply cashing in on the modeler, texturer, and riggers ideas and work. Unless he did every step of the process.

Directing is a complex discipline, and requires a ton of talent and experience. The problem is that it's one of those disciplines that if done right, should be completely transperent to the audience. So it's easy to dismiss the hard work and talent that a director brings to the party.

Eric


I don't have any disagreement with what you're saying. We have a different view on which shots in Transformer 2 are Bay's work and which is Spielberg pushing in because he smells money, and his ego will not stop him from screwing with the film. If Spielberg was the director of this movie Transformers 2 would have flopped.

If you can't see the difference in style of the two directors and pick out Bay's work from Spielberg's interference in Transformers 2 then why are you talking about what it takes to be a director? I don't need to be a director to see the two different styles of these two directors. I know their movies, and most of you should be able to see that. I've never seen a Michael Bay movie that was geography challenged the way a Spielberg movie is. There are too many scenes in Transformer 2 that conform to Spielberg's geography screwy style. There are too many stupid junior-high style scenes in Transformers 2 to be Bay's work.

The parents talking dirty in front of the kid - That's Bay's style. The two stupid scenes with Raimn Wilson as the astronomy professor, and the dumb inside Indiana Jones jokes that flopped are Spielberg style of stupid. The 2 dumb/rapper bots. The stupid border crossing scene with the short guy from India posing as an Egyptian - that's Spielberg style of junk characters.

This isn't about what it takes to be a director, or what makes a great director. This is about Spielberg being a egotist and using his power to pollute a film with his over-the-hill and outdated style of movie making. Michael bay deserves his share of complaints about the movie, but Bay doesn't deserve to be pounded on for Spielberg's interference on scenes and character that are clearly Spielberg's style of film making.

If you can't see the difference in styles and Spielberg's level of interference then their isn't much else to talk about.

frantbk
07-03-2009, 07:01 AM
what makes you think Bay is so accurate? Didn't you see Armageddon?? It was an absolute joke. "we'll send oil rig workers into space because they already know how to use the drill" ;D It was PACKED with junk like that. .

Yes I saw Armageddon. I also know Bay's style of film making from Spielberg's style of film making. The question I have for you is, have you seen a Spielberg movie??? Do you know the difference between Spielberg's style and Bay's style of junk filming, and stupid jokes??

Iain
07-03-2009, 07:18 AM
Yes I saw Armageddon. I also know Bay's style of film making from Spielberg's style of film making. The question I have for you is, have you seen a Spielberg movie??? Do you know the difference between Spielberg's style and Bay's style of junk filming, and stupid jokes??

I think you are somewhat confused between these two and what is important in film making.

Spielberg has made classics full of fear, humour, beauty and charm. He's had some misses but he has been responsible for some of the most iconic imagery and characterisation in US cinema (regardless of whether he was the writer or not :stop:).
Obviously he keeps ruining his movies with geographical errors (or was that his writers?) but somehow I, and most of the world, usually overlook that.

Do you think money was the driving force behind him making Munich? Have you seen it? There's only one or two explosions (so you probably haven't seen it) no silly dialogue and it's absolutely brilliant.

Michael Bay simply makes trash-junk food for the cinema geared to make lots of money and with no artistic agenda whatsoever.

COBRASoft
07-03-2009, 07:29 AM
Iain, I agree with you. Munich was amazing. In my opinion, his best movie by far.

ericsmith
07-03-2009, 08:14 AM
If you can't see the difference in style of the two directors and pick out Bay's work from Spielberg's interference in Transformers 2 then why are you talking about what it takes to be a director? I don't need to be a director to see the two different styles of these two directors. I know their movies, and most of you should be able to see that. I've never seen a Michael Bay movie that was geography challenged the way a Spielberg movie is. There are too many scenes in Transformer 2 that conform to Spielberg's geography screwy style. There are too many stupid junior-high style scenes in Transformers 2 to be Bay's work.

Well I haven't seen Transformers 2 so I can't comment on this specific point.

The only thing I was taking issue with you bashing Speilberg simply because he was not the sole creative influence in the films he directed. If you don't like his directorial style, that a completely different conversation, but at least let's be clear that most movies are not directed by the same person who wrote the script.

Eric

Matt
07-03-2009, 12:12 PM
Munich was a fantastic film, deep, rich, well paced, excellent cast and acting.

Tippsy
07-03-2009, 12:39 PM
Oh my gosh freaking bashing Spielberg because he is not always accurate in geography and time!!! If you want real world dont ever see a movie just go outside, we go to movies to be entertained and the fact that your bashing on someone you know nothing about and you havent even done anything with movies that is just sad.

As soon as you are a huge director that has gone through all the steps and problems that they go through then u can comment on an icon!!

Dexter2999
07-03-2009, 02:19 PM
The parents talking dirty in front of the kid - That's Bay's style. The two stupid scenes with Raimn Wilson as the astronomy professor, and the dumb inside Indiana Jones jokes that flopped are Spielberg style of stupid. The 2 dumb/rapper bots. The stupid border crossing scene with the short guy from India posing as an Egyptian - that's Spielberg style of junk characters.



And Bay's style of junk characters (from the first movie) are 20 year old gorgeous Australian computer programmers working for US Security. Or Hip comedic super hackers living in the inner city playing Xbox games like Anthony Anderson. Or taking a first rate actor like John Turturro and making him a camp government agent in funny boxer shorts.

Spielberg has his faults (HOOK, Jurassic Park II & III) and his cop out is "this movie is fun". Bay however is just the worst part of Spielberg and about a third of the innovation Spielberg has pushed into movie magic.

jin choung
07-04-2009, 01:24 AM
i can't see HOW someone does NOT find those two "hip hop" robots to be racially offensive.

big gold buck teeth? really? if they had those robots talking with asian accents, you could have kissed goodbye your japanese audience from whence transformers hail.

i don't know what nut jobs at the studios saw this and said, hey, this is cool. let's go with that.

what the f is wrong with bay and dreamworks and paramount?!

it's big and stupid and makes very little sense. but it makes more sense than the the first movie so that's something. but it's workmanlike enough not to be very boring and that's something too.

especially with the cool ***** voice of cullen as optimus and the promise that the opening and ending narrations hold, you can imagine something that COULD HAVE BEEN.

something that made sense. something that avoided the stupidity of the cube as a plot device that turns everything into transformers....

it inspires me to write - to come up with a better version of the story. that's something at least.

decepticons were fleshed out a bit and starscream actually has a recognizable personality as an obsequious back stabber... and you can actually hear weaving's voice this time around.

but just a story that made some kind of sense.

and not filled with bay's idiotic, nonsensical and oblivious political ideas.

ack.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
07-04-2009, 04:35 AM
i can't see HOW someone does NOT find those two "hip hop" robots to be racially offensive.

big gold buck teeth? really? if they had those robots talking with asian accents, you could have kissed goodbye your japanese audience from whence transformers hail.

You are convinced they are stereotypical "Hip Hop" robots just because they have big gold buck teeth?! Now who's the insensitive racist *******...

Joking Jin ;).

I despise political correctness but even I cringed at those two. I saw the movie with a couple black buddies and they both thought the robots were hilarious. I didn't mention my reservations about Mudflap etc. because, well, I am white and I was concerned I might get the mock response above.

toby
07-04-2009, 04:46 AM
Is there any statistic that tracks the disparity between critical reviews and box office reciepts? This one's got to have the biggest, by a wide margin.

frantbk
07-04-2009, 12:32 PM
I think you are somewhat confused between these two and what is important in film making.

Spielberg has made classics full of fear, humour, beauty and charm. He's had some misses but he has been responsible for some of the most iconic imagery and characterisation in US cinema (regardless of whether he was the writer or not :stop:).
Obviously he keeps ruining his movies with geographical errors (or was that his writers?) but somehow I, and most of the world, usually overlook that.

Do you think money was the driving force behind him making Munich? Have you seen it? There's only one or two explosions (so you probably haven't seen it) no silly dialogue and it's absolutely brilliant.

Michael Bay simply makes trash-junk food for the cinema geared to make lots of money and with no artistic agenda whatsoever.

Woow, talk about over-the-top drama about Spielberg and his films. The fact is Spielberg needs Michael Bay more then Michael Bay needs Spielberg for the success of Transformers 3. In his day (which is no longer here) Spielberg and Lucas created new standards and changed the direction of an industry. That is not the case anymore. Spielberg hasn't produced a film that could in any way shape or form be considered the third act of his long film making. More importantly he is so rich he doesn't care, which is why his movies are out-of-date, boring and full of old scenes from his other films.

As for your dig at Michael Bay and his trash-junk food for cinema, with no artistic agenda. If Spielberg is so great then why is he funding Bay? Because Spielberg is just an old rich guy that only wants money and has no artistic agenda. If he did then wouldn't Spielberg be funding young Sundance directors instead of easy money from junk-food directors?

Come down out of the Clouds about Spielberg. It's too much drama for this thread.

frantbk
07-04-2009, 12:37 PM
And Bay's style of junk characters (from the first movie) are 20 year old gorgeous Australian computer programmers working for US Security. Or Hip comedic super hackers living in the inner city playing Xbox games like Anthony Anderson. Or taking a first rate actor like John Turturro and making him a camp government agent in funny boxer shorts.

Spielberg has his faults (HOOK, Jurassic Park II & III) and his cop out is "this movie is fun". Bay however is just the worst part of Spielberg and about a third of the innovation Spielberg has pushed into movie magic.

Michael Bay and Spielberg are just two types of apples. Spielberg and Bay are the same. Quite blaming Bay for Spielberg's faults. Spielberg had his faults long before Michael Bay was funded by Spielberg.

Spielberg is there because of the money. Spielberg is funding a guy who fits his style of movies and together their both becoming richer then most third world countries.

DragonFist
07-04-2009, 01:03 PM
Wow, talk about drama.

Tippsy
07-04-2009, 01:44 PM
Wow some of you guys are just plain stupid!

cresshead
07-04-2009, 02:29 PM
was the popcorn nice?

Dexter2999
07-04-2009, 02:41 PM
I'm not "blaming" Bay for anything. He makes movies that make tons of cash. But they aren't great movies. He's like the McDonalds of film.

jin choung
07-04-2009, 03:19 PM
I despise political correctness but even I cringed at those two. I saw the movie with a couple black buddies and they both thought the robots were hilarious. I didn't mention my reservations about Mudflap etc. because, well, I am white and I was concerned I might get the mock response above.

right.

there is a way in which the makers of the movie or its defenders can say that an offended response says more about the viewer than the maker.

and there are times in which that can be true.

not here.

jin

jin choung
07-04-2009, 03:21 PM
Is there any statistic that tracks the disparity between critical reviews and box office reciepts? This one's got to have the biggest, by a wide margin.

yeah! this is probably the lowest rated, highest grossing movie in the history of cinema.

we're one step closer to the world depicted in idiocracy.

jin

Ernest
07-04-2009, 03:51 PM
There's something that I really admire and respect about Michael Bay. Seriously. It's that he makes his trashy movies about trashy subjects.

I really don't mind that the movie inspired by the Bad Boys song was mindless, or that the movie about the Transformers was mindless. Bay seems to know his limits and knows how to keep his place.

If Bay tried to direct Macross, Death Note, or the Brothers Karamazov like this, it would be infuriating. But he doesn't.

Yes, the Transformers could have been a far greater movie without spending a single extra cent, but that was wasted potential relative to the movie itself, not to the source material. I don't think I remember a Bay movie where I thought that the excellent source material had been wasted, like I've often done with Uwe Boll.

jin choung
07-04-2009, 05:12 PM
ok, writing exercise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers

most of that is garbage. i can see where bay got the whole idea of a cube that turns things into transformers.... wtf? the idea that a transformer life is so cheap and easy is ridiculous and completely nullifies an individual's value and undercuts something that can be explored - a transformer's lifecycle.

so, here are the topics that should be addressed to create a coherent universe:

0. WHY DO THEY TRANSFORM?!?! why shape change? what kind of evolutionary history makes that an inherent part of their species?

1. cybertron - backstory of their homeworld and how the factions ended up at each other's throats.

2. autobots vs. decepticons... what do the decepticons WANT? what is a REASONABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE goal that they are striving for?

3. when did they first come to earth? can they be linked to any ancient stories? it would be poetic if the decepticons were the 1/3 of angels that fell from heavens (the root of their name is "deception" after all...) and many angels are depicted in the bible as having odd geometry and pinwheel like... hey, maybe ufos too? bay did do this kind of thing by linking the transformers to the pyramids but they should go a bit further and make their intervention in human history more explicit? maybe prometheus was a transformer! zeus almost certainly... he was a shapechanger even in the original stories! and ovid's book of mythology is called METAMORPHOSIS after all!

4. what do they need to live? and what is their lifecycle? how do they live and die and how are they born? what is their "biology"?

any other relevant and lynchpin questions that need to be answered?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

my take:

0. why transform? it is their mode of evolution. clearly, they are not life as we know it so we can assume a non carbon based species. silicon based? so at their core, they are living computers that are essentially immortal. but without dying of "old age", the species can become stagnant and be susceptible to disease, climatic change and predators.

their way of "upgrading" and overcoming the lack of generational evolution is through transforming. initially, it was a slow process but even that slow process evolved to ever faster and faster rates of change such that it becomes what we are currently familiar with.

ah... this raises the question then - if they can transform so easily and quickly, why do they have ANY "fixed forms" at all? why does optimus always look like optimus instead of changing according to whim?

well, we can link it back to evolution so that a transform shape is a "mutation" and every mutation is most likely HARMFUL. to take on a new shape is fraught with peril and even after a successful adoption of a new shape, much time must be spent to purge the shape of defects. "dna self repair". but once a shape is adopted, you can switch to it at will.

so this gets rid of all the EASY scan and switches in the movies (mudflap twins in particular) and imposes something EXTREMELY NECESSARY in good stories - CLEAR LIMITATIONS! the lack of it can totally destroy narrative ala jedis and superman.

1. cybertron was their primordial soup. it was essentially a sentient, planetary cyber organism from which transformers and all cybertronic life was a component of.

AHA, here's a cool idea. decepticons started EVERYTHING... that is, cybertron was a hive mind and all components were like organs. cybertron was about wholeness, oneness, unity, harmony. all were one and at peace. until the "EGO" of decepticons appeared as a mutation. a desire to "split" and "individuate". this is their biblical fall. the desire to be SEPARATE.

once this process began, it spread like a virus throughout cybertron creating a genesis event and all manner of "animals" appeared as well as the highest order beings of "people" - decepticons and autobots.

2. decepticons became the embodiment of the separation mutation. they want to be apart and individual. they represent EGO and self absorption. instead of getting along in harmony, each wants to be exalted as his own self.

and therefore, they want to ascend and DOMINATE. they are a culture not of cooperation but subjugation. and this is essentially in their dna.

and while the autobots owe their very EXISTENCE to the decepticon separation gene, they perceive this separation as a great tragedy. and so, they strive for unity and cooperation and eventual reconciliation to what they perceive to be their "natural state" of unified bliss with cybertron.

see? that's cool. epic! biblical. meaty.

in this case, we can call all of decepticons as 'the fallen' and we can indeed get poetic by saying that 1/3 of all peeps of cybertron were decepticons and 2/3 were autobots.

cybertron was the mother from whom all tranformer life sprang - calling for all to return to her and be at peace and one. and the autobots are the reactionary antibodies she has summoned to purge the planet of the harmful cancer of decepticons.

decepticons despise and hate the autobots because they recognize that their very existence is owed to the decepticon mutation. the autobots would not even exist and be self aware if it were not for them, but they do not recognize it!

autobots of course do not hate. they are striving for all to be one. but the decepticons wage a war and so the autobots fight.

THE GREAT BATTLE:

autobots are going to win. the decepticons were subdued unity was within grasp. but then the leader of the decepticons - megatron - did the unthinkable. instead of submitting to defeat and becoming absorbed again into cybertron, he activated an ubervirus that would eventually destroy cybertron gauranteeing the preservation of his SELF.

the decepticons flee in a gigantic space ark.

the autobots do what they can to stop the mutation but it is hopeless. countless millions of autobots die trying to prevent the inevitable.

finally, without any other options, they themselves load into a space ark and depart their home planet as their planet disintegrates and explodes.

optimus prime, the leader of the autobots gives orders to pursue the decepticon space ark because he knows that as long as the decepticons exist, no planet is safe... and there have been signals intercepted in space that indicate that there might be other intelligent life in the universe.

the destruction of cybertron is the destruction of their reproductive cycle. cybertron was the womb of all transformer life and with her destruction, the autobots and decepticons are the very last of their kind.

3. again, the decepticons are the catalyst that start everything - it is they who discover life on planet earth and decide to land in order to conquer it.

the autobots catch up to the decepticons in earth orbit and a gigantic space battle ensues. both space craft are mortally damaged and both plummet into the planet, the decepticons, with a finally push shove the autobots away from them and each of them land on opposite poles.

and that is the beginning of their history on earth. the time of that landing can be the beginning of civilization and it can be that it was autobot/decepticon intervention that lead to writing.... something like that.

also, no transforming to organic shapes. they can't pull that off. and no mass change. mass must be conserved.

more to come maybe....

jin

cresshead
07-04-2009, 05:37 PM
i can't see HOW someone does NOT find those two "hip hop" robots to be racially offensive.

big gold buck teeth? really? if they had those robots talking with asian accents, you could have kissed goodbye your japanese audience from whence transformers hail.



jin

not one to jump on the band wagon but i found them to be just fine ["hip hop" robots]...the script was not great, the edit was too long but the fx were cool even if the robot design was too spikey/non descript.



6 out of 10

overall the film was trying too hard with fx shot after fx shot [did i really write that??]
rather than a good story/acting/script.

james cameron is a very hard act to beat [terminator2, aliens, the abyss] in the sci-fi action genre.
his films have a tight story/script and great acting.

COBRASoft
07-04-2009, 06:27 PM
It's time for The Abyss 2, that should be fun with todays FX possiblities :)

Let's see what Avatar will bring.

crashnburn
07-05-2009, 12:33 PM
So it's simple really, if you don't like Michael Bay films then don't watch them, if you do, go for it. Same with Spielberg.

Lets face it, if you over analyse any film you will find holes or something to spoil it, no matter how great the director. Films use a lot of artistic licence, bend the rules, certainly bend the laws of physics. Every Star Wars film has had noise is space......doh.....it's a vacuum! But yet they are such great and popular films, the first three particularly. I can't understand why people can't watch films for what they. Yeah some may be 'junk food' films, but I bet most people enjoy a hamburger or hot dog now and again.

frantbk
07-06-2009, 07:13 AM
was the popcorn nice?

I saw Transformers 2 on stimulus Tuesday: Pop for $1.00 and popcorn for $1.00, so yes is was nice popcorn.

sandman300
07-06-2009, 12:35 PM
First off I want to say that I think it was great. I can think of plenty of things that I would have done differently, but I didn't make the movie so until I do I'll keep that to myself. This was Bay's vision (as director) and I'm fine with that.


ok, writing exercise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers

most of that is garbage. i can see where bay got the whole idea of a cube that turns things into transformers.... wtf? the idea that a transformer life is so cheap and easy is ridiculous

The creation Matrix has been a core Idea since the beginning. And that is very Decepticon of you.



0. WHY DO THEY TRANSFORM?!?! why shape change? what kind of evolutionary history makes that an inherent part of their species?


Environmental Adaptation. Although this is not something that was ever officially stated, I would postulate that this ability manifested itself as a results of constant warfare on Cybertron. Evolutionary superiority wins the battle. Now this was also likely one bot upgrading another.


1. cybertron - backstory of their homeworld and how the factions ended up at each other's throats. As far as the new movies are concerned, the Decepticons, through Megatron were being manipulated by the fallen. Decepticons tried to kill off Autobot leaders...

2. autobots vs. decepticons... what do the decepticons WANT? what is a REASONABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE goal that they are striving for?

For the most part, Power but in both senses of the meaning. Energon for fueling their conquests. The way I see it it's order trying to contain chaos.


3. when did they first come to earth? can they be linked to any ancient stories? it would be poetic if the decepticons were the 1/3 of angels that fell from heavens (the root of their name is "deception" after all...) and many angels are depicted in the bible as having odd geometry and pinwheel like... hey, maybe UFOs too? bay did do this kind of thing by linking the transformers to the pyramids but they should go a bit further and make their intervention in human history more explicit? maybe Prometheus was a transformer! Zeus almost certainly... he was a shape changer even in the original stories! and ovid's book of mythology is called METAMORPHOSIS after all!

Certainly something like that could be done, just not with this property. Doing so would change things in ways that would make it unrecognizable.

On the other hand the idea has been done before... Stargate for one.


4. what do they need to live? and what is their lifecycle? how do they live and die and how are they born? what is their "biology"?

Wow people were complaining about it being 2 1/2 hours, and you want it to be 16 hours. If only Wagner were still around to write the Transformers Opera.


my take:

0. why transform? it is their mode of evolution. clearly, they are not life as we know it so we can assume a non carbon based species. silicon based? so at their core, they are living computers that are essentially immortal. but without dying of "old age", the species can become stagnant and be susceptible to disease, climatic change and predators.

their way of "upgrading" and overcoming the lack of generational evolution is through transforming. initially, it was a slow process but even that slow process evolved to ever faster and faster rates of change such that it becomes what we are currently familiar with.

ah... this raises the question then - if they can transform so easily and quickly, why do they have ANY "fixed forms" at all? why does optimus always look like optimus instead of changing according to whim?

well, we can link it back to evolution so that a transform shape is a "mutation" and every mutation is most likely HARMFUL. to take on a new shape is fraught with peril and even after a successful adoption of a new shape, much time must be spent to purge the shape of defects. "dna self repair". but once a shape is adopted, you can switch to it at will.

so this gets rid of all the EASY scan and switches in the movies (mudflap twins in particular) and imposes something EXTREMELY NECESSARY in good stories - CLEAR LIMITATIONS! the lack of it can totally destroy narrative ala jedis and superman.

1. cybertron was their primordial soup. it was essentially a sentient, planetary cyber organism from which transformers and all cybertronic life was a component of.

AHA, here's a cool idea. decepticons started EVERYTHING... that is, cybertron was a hive mind and all components were like organs. cybertron was about wholeness, oneness, unity, harmony. all were one and at peace. until the "EGO" of decepticons appeared as a mutation. a desire to "split" and "individuate". this is their biblical fall. the desire to be SEPARATE.

once this process began, it spread like a virus throughout cybertron creating a genesis event and all manner of "animals" appeared as well as the highest order beings of "people" - decepticons and autobots.

2. decepticons became the embodiment of the separation mutation. they want to be apart and individual. they represent EGO and self absorption. instead of getting along in harmony, each wants to be exalted as his own self.

and therefore, they want to ascend and DOMINATE. they are a culture not of cooperation but subjugation. and this is essentially in their dna.

and while the autobots owe their very EXISTENCE to the decepticon separation gene, they perceive this separation as a great tragedy. and so, they strive for unity and cooperation and eventual reconciliation to what they perceive to be their "natural state" of unified bliss with cybertron.

see? that's cool. epic! biblical. meaty.

in this case, we can call all of decepticons as 'the fallen' and we can indeed get poetic by saying that 1/3 of all peeps of cybertron were decepticons and 2/3 were autobots.

cybertron was the mother from whom all tranformer life sprang - calling for all to return to her and be at peace and one. and the autobots are the reactionary antibodies she has summoned to purge the planet of the harmful cancer of decepticons.

decepticons despise and hate the autobots because they recognize that their very existence is owed to the decepticon mutation. the autobots would not even exist and be self aware if it were not for them, but they do not recognize it!

autobots of course do not hate. they are striving for all to be one. but the decepticons wage a war and so the autobots fight.

THE GREAT BATTLE:

autobots are going to win. the decepticons were subdued unity was within grasp. but then the leader of the decepticons - megatron - did the unthinkable. instead of submitting to defeat and becoming absorbed again into cybertron, he activated an ubervirus that would eventually destroy cybertron gauranteeing the preservation of his SELF.

the decepticons flee in a gigantic space ark.

the autobots do what they can to stop the mutation but it is hopeless. countless millions of autobots die trying to prevent the inevitable.

finally, without any other options, they themselves load into a space ark and depart their home planet as their planet disintegrates and explodes.

optimus prime, the leader of the autobots gives orders to pursue the decepticon space ark because he knows that as long as the decepticons exist, no planet is safe... and there have been signals intercepted in space that indicate that there might be other intelligent life in the universe.

the destruction of cybertron is the destruction of their reproductive cycle. cybertron was the womb of all transformer life and with her destruction, the autobots and decepticons are the very last of their kind.

3. again, the decepticons are the catalyst that start everything - it is they who discover life on planet earth and decide to land in order to conquer it.

the autobots catch up to the decepticons in earth orbit and a gigantic space battle ensues. both space craft are mortally damaged and both plummet into the planet, the decepticons, with a finally push shove the autobots away from them and each of them land on opposite poles.

and that is the beginning of their history on earth. the time of that landing can be the beginning of civilization and it can be that it was autobot/decepticon intervention that lead to writing.... something like that.

also, no transforming to organic shapes. they can't pull that off. and no mass change. mass must be conserved.

Wow, I am so glad you didn't work for Marvel in the mid 80's. Perhaps you don't realize that the Transformers phenomena is built around licensing of a toy line. This is merchandising in reverse.

As for the rest of your ideas... People usually don't answer their own questions (unless they are a lawyer). My suggestion to you is write your own story and pitch it to the studios. As far as connecting it to this property it likely won't get any further than fan fiction. No offense but this is pretty bad (IMHO).

more to come maybe....

jin

jin choung
07-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Perhaps you don't realize that the Transformers phenomena is built around licensing of a toy line.

are you using that as an excuse to not take the property seriously?

yes it was a toy but it wasn't received with a metafictional irony or cynicism by THE TARGET AUDIENCE. so why not respect that earnestness? that genuine enthusiasm that kids approached the fodder of their imaginations?

there is no excuse for not having a rigorous, logical story that is self consistent and makes sense on its own terms. because no matter the source, when it becomes a movie, it MUST WORK AS A MOVIE.

plot holes and lapses in logic is just sloppy and lazy and no excuse excuses it.

jin

sandman300
07-06-2009, 01:35 PM
are you using that as an excuse to not take the property seriously? not in the least, I love the property, I'd have made a transformer movie myself a decade ago if I could have afforded the licensing. I've been a fan since the firs issue was released by Marvel back in 1985.

considering that it originally was slated as a 4 issue limited series and ended up still strong 25 years later, I'd say it can hold its own against cynicism and metafictional irony.

Like I said originaly, I liked it, It made sence, the plot worked, it may have left out information from the movie itself that would lend itself to a better understanding of the movie itself (external information sources like the prequil series) But that's marketing and was done on purpose. Not being lazy as you would like to think.

jin choung
07-06-2009, 02:05 PM
not in the least, I love the property, I'd have made a transformer movie myself a decade ago if I could have afforded the licensing. I've been a fan since the firs issue was released by Marvel back in 1985.

considering that it originally was slated as a 4 issue limited series and ended up still strong 25 years later, I'd say it can hold its own against cynicism and metafictional irony.

Like I said originaly, I liked it, It made sence, the plot worked, it may have left out information from the movie itself that would lend itself to a better understanding of the movie itself (external information sources like the prequil series) But that's marketing and was done on purpose. Not being lazy as you would like to think.

and considering that it gets a 20% on rotten tomatoes and resoundingly and ubiquitously bad reviews by people who know movies, you have at least 20% who agree with your evaluation.

jin

sandman300
07-06-2009, 02:33 PM
You could be right, or, perhaps only 20% of us actually take the time to look up these 100$ words you use and realize that you really don't know as much as you say. Personally I don't care if no one else liked it. I'm just very unsheeplike in that way. BTW I also liked Ishtar.

jin choung
07-06-2009, 02:50 PM
You could be right, or, perhaps only 20% of us actually take the time to look up these 100$ words you use and realize that you really don't know as much as you say. Personally I don't care if no one else liked it. I'm just very unsheeplike in that way. BTW I also liked Ishtar.

hey good for you. good luck with that.

Jin

Nicolas Jordan
07-06-2009, 03:04 PM
there is no excuse for not having a rigorous, logical story that is self consistent and makes sense on its own terms. because no matter the source, when it becomes a movie, it MUST WORK AS A MOVIE.

plot holes and lapses in logic is just sloppy and lazy and no excuse excuses it.



:agree: I am a big Transformers fan and I can't seem to look past this movies many faults and short comings. In my opinion a movie is only as good as the worst part of it. Of coarse there will always be those that like it just because they slapped the Transformers name on the movie.

toby
07-06-2009, 03:50 PM
just a genereal plea/observation: Please stop bringing up the "it's just fun, can't you see that?" argument all the time - it implies that one thinks the people discussing here are to stupid to see what transformers was meant to be (but failed in most people's eyes).
Thank You.
It's not like we're comparing Transformers to "The English Patient" or "Lawrence of Arabia".

Amhras
07-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Michael Bay is a mediocre director on his best day. Knowing that before going to see TF2 made the experience much more enjoyable. I expected drek and got crap with cool visuals instead, which made it better than I thought it would be.... For what it was, I loved it!

cresshead
07-06-2009, 06:45 PM
i'd have pefered it with more transformers and less humans for "screentime" we never really got much dialogue for the transformers did we so appeared to be more of a typical sci-fi movie that had some metal munching robots shoehorned in to spice up the action.

i'd add it STILL do not like the spikey transforms...they just seem to be created that way cos the modelers/animators/designers don't have the brains to make a 'transformer' from a car to a robot.

the old citeron car adverts were better...same with the boxx computer transofrmer scene in the lw installer and least they 'trans-formed'

sandman300
07-06-2009, 11:28 PM
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/...aqs.php?page=1

i read this review and I had to wonder, did this guy really see the movie or was he just so enamored by the explosions that he forgot to pay attention.

jin choung
07-06-2009, 11:44 PM
i'd add it STILL do not like the spikey transforms...they just seem to be created that way cos the modelers/animators/designers don't have the brains to make a 'transformer' from a car to a robot.

the old citeron car adverts were better...same with the boxx computer transofrmer scene in the lw installer and least they 'trans-formed'

yeah... aesthetically it's so intricate it's just visual noise.

bad calls all the way around.

jin

toby
07-07-2009, 12:01 AM
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/...aqs.php?page=1

i read this review and I had to wonder, did this guy really see the movie or was he just so enamored by the explosions that he forgot to pay attention.
You mean Sam doesn't get sent back to life by robots in heaven?

Amhras
07-07-2009, 11:17 AM
You mean Sam doesn't get sent back to life by robots in heaven?

Kinda raises the question of whether or not the whole Autobot/Decepticon war is a war of religion. I mean seriously, how long can one guy blow the crap out of his fellow species on the basis that he wants to be the ruler of a dead planet??? (And this bit with Megatron basically being a Sith apprentice... a wee bit on the contrived side there. Should've just called him Darth Metal)

sandman300
07-07-2009, 11:51 AM
You mean Sam doesn't get sent back to life by robots in heaven?

Ahh, no. Let me see if I can explain it to you. The allspark (formerly known as the Matrix of leadership or the Creation Matrix) was in the cube in the first movie. Wen it was destroyed, the allspark went into Sam Witwicky's head. The Primes were joined with the allspark after they died. That being said, it not the heaven that you might think of but it might be something similar (what ever that might be for a space alien robot). In any case this was in his head.

mosconariz
07-08-2009, 10:37 AM
This movie was so bad that I almost cried