Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dienekes96 wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:In case anyone is wondering, the above poster is of course internationally recognised as holding the minimal acceptable level of taste in cinema, hence why he is coming across as an arrogant bore who simply assumes all should agree with him, or they aren't worth bothering with.

I can't help being a bore. If I am arrogant for disliking a lowest common denominator turd because it is both plotless and brainless, that is a choice I'll happily make and an insult I'll happily bear.

It just tells you something about a movie when the most common defense is to "turn your brain off".

If we were discussing a remake of Citizen Kane, or perhaps the plot to a psychological thriller, I might agree with you. But we're not. We're discussing Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen. A film about 40' tall robots what can turn into stuff having a war.

Hence why I suggested you were a snob and a bore.

Lowering your expectations is not about just accepting any crap. This film could have been truly disastrous. But it's not. It delivers everything you'd expect, and in spades. So I still fail to see why people knock the dodgy script, skewed plot (Which I followed without a problem, seeing as it's simple) and wooden acting. It isn't, and never was, meant to be Oscar worthy, or a contender for a Palm D'or. Films such as this should really concern themselves with dodging a Razzie and not much more.

youngblood wrote:That's funny coming from Racer X avatar.

QFT

Speed Racer was 20X the film this turkey was. I expected that comment, based on my avatar. I'll happily defend SR...it did everything right that TF2 did wrong. It just didn't make any money. It had well-written characters, a bit of drama, and a fantastic score. It also had creative effects and was brilliantly shot and edited.

I recognize we were discussing TF2, not No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. I'm surprised you could follow the plot...there wasn't one. There was always something that needed to be done for the next scene, but that is about it. I'm just surprised it's getting such a pass. The second half of the film was completely boring. Unfunny, dull action, multiple deus ex machinas.

They've made good movies about robots before...Terminator 1 and 2, The Matrix, Iron Giant.

I agree about your Razzie comment, except they didn't dodge it. They seem to have aimed directly for it.

dienekes96 wrote:Speed Racer was 20X the film this turkey was. I expected that comment, based on my avatar. I'll happily defend SR...it did everything right that TF2 did wrong. It just didn't make any money. It had well-written characters, a bit of drama, and a fantastic score. It also had creative effects and was brilliantly shot and edited.

I recognize we were discussing TF2, not No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. .

I disagree with the Speed Racer remarks (not in comparison to TF2, haven't seen it). I thought Speed Racer was rather unnecassarily flashy and shallow. However, you make up for it by name dropping There Will Be Blood.

I liked Speed Racer. Though I can fully understand why someone wouldn't like it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It isn't, and never was, meant to be Oscar worthy, or a contender for a Palm D'or. Films such as this should really concern themselves with dodging a Razzie and not much more.

You lie.

Revenge of the Fallen is a strong contender for both the Most Explosions Oscar and the Best Explosions Oscar.

dienekes96 wrote:Speed Racer was 20X the film this turkey was. I expected that comment, based on my avatar. I'll happily defend SR...it did everything right that TF2 did wrong. It just didn't make any money. It had well-written characters, a bit of drama, and a fantastic score. It also had creative effects and was brilliantly shot and edited.

I recognize we were discussing TF2, not No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. I'm surprised you could follow the plot...there wasn't one. There was always something that needed to be done for the next scene, but that is about it. I'm just surprised it's getting such a pass. The second half of the film was completely boring. Unfunny, dull action, multiple deus ex machinas.

They've made good movies about robots before...Terminator 1 and 2, The Matrix, Iron Giant.

I agree about your Razzie comment, except they didn't dodge it. They seem to have aimed directly for it.

Now you're not the first person to compare it to Terminator films, and you certainly won't be the last. But lets look at the films mentioned.

Terminator 1, Terminator 2. Both were films aimed at a more mature audience. The first could be described as a film about technological paranoia, and that if we wish to avert a certain future, we have to act in the present. Terminator 2 was a straight up, shameless blockbuster aimed at a largely adult audience.

The Matrix was a decent crack at a philosophical movie. Shame about the sequels. Again, due to the plot content, this was aimed squarely at a more mature audience, and definitely at the emerging internet generation.

Iron Giant. To be fair, not seen it so won't comment. Though I wonder if it's the same as the book I read as a kid.

But Transformers was always meant to be brain bubblegum. Something with spectacular special effects to seperate Joe Public from his wallet for a couple of hours, and like it's origins, shift a buttload of Toys.

Different markets have different demands.

Horrible comic relief characters only serve one purpose: to garner hatred from the viewers and to then die, to the delight of the viewers.

I thought the twins weren't nearly as annoying as Jar Jar, but that might come from the fact that I'm still surprised by Jar Jar's existence in the first place.
Comic relief characters, offensive or not, in a Micheal Bay movie just don't surprise me at all. At least not more than in any aother PG-13 summer blockbuster.

There are G movies with better plots. That is my point. It only takes a little effort to make TF2 more palatable for adults. The Dark Knight shares a rating with TF2, and it's origins are no less pulpy and silly.

But they spent a lot of time on the script, ensuring they had a plot that both enabled the chaos onscreen and supported a cogent story. I am all for robots made out of pixels hitting each other over and over (especially with the God of War finishing moves that Bay loves), but would it hurt to make a character or two out of them. A little depth, just a little, goes a LONG way.

To be fair, we all know Bay is incapable of that. Too bad.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But Transformers was always meant to be brain bubblegum. Something with spectacular special effects to seperate Joe Public from his wallet for a couple of hours, and like it's origins, shift a buttload of Toys.

Different markets have different demands.

Yes, and if anyone was to say Transformers 2 was poor because the theme was paper thin and cliche, I'd agree with you. If anyone said Transformers 2 was bad because the the plot was inane, I'd agree with you. Blockbusters use simple themes and well established plots, and then rise above that with spectacle. Transformers certainly had spectacle, the last half hour to hour was full of sweeping shots, transforming robots, fighting robots, slow motion running, explosions and slow motion running away from explosions.

But none of it meant anything. There were people yelling and screaming and robots shooting and getting shot, but it was all just a mess.

In the middle of the big action seen gormless everygeek Sam Whitwicky has had his parents turn up, and they all scream loving things at each other. Sam says they have to let him do this by himself. You can tell is poignant because the music is swelling and summer blockbusters always have poignant bits about children becoming adults. Except this movie is a horrendous mess and nothing before has even remotely set up Whitwicky for this important step in becoming a man. After everyone gives their last dramatic looks into the camera the film remembers there's robots fighting for future of the galaxy and gets back to showing that.

A bit later the Fallen remembers he can use telekinesis (or something) to lift tanks in the air and drop them. I wonder why he didn't use this earlier when his Decepticons were getting trashed, but given how utterly confusing the fighting scene was its possible that the Fallen has as little clue as to what was going on as we did.

Jetfire says he was sorry he was ever a Decepticon and gives his glowing blue thing to Prime, then more bits stick on to Prime and he becomes bad ass until it's no longer plot appropriate for him to be badass. Nothing was ever mentioned before or after about the strange one shot powers of the glowing blue things of Seekers, but we're well and truly into the realms of making stuff up as we go along, so why not?

For much of the first two thirds of the movie I wasn't hating Transformers 2 (the stereotype robots were something else and the humour was embaressingly puerile but there were good bits). Then the film kicked into the last act and started to demonstrate how the important things a film should be setting up in the first two thirds had been missed in among the farting robots and marjuana hilarity. It didn't suck because it was a 'leave your brain at the door' blockbuster. It sucked because it was a bad 'leave your brain at the door' blockbuster.

I say this very lightly and don't mean to offend:

only MORONS went to transformers 2 and left dissapointed.
I, as well as my friends went to the film expecting 2 hours of mindless robot action and flashes of Megan fox in provocative poses. And guess what, it delivered!

Although I will make one query, is it just me or did megaton seem a lot weaker to you in TF2?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

BrotherStynier wrote:They claim them to be racist be cause they talk like "Gangstas" and cant read Cybertronian, which people think means they can't read at all.

Me I think they were a commentary on the American youth, where both Whites and Blacks speak like that and can be illiterate.

And had buck teeth (one had a gold tooth) and big ears.

Yeah to a US audience it was CRYSTAL CLEAR they were cliched black stereotypes.

i saw the movie in a theatre that had mostly non white people watching the flim. The two robots mentioned above always drew a lot of chuckles from the audience and they seemed to be the most popular by far. I found them to be quite comical often enough.

G

I took a crap today and named it- Transformers 3: The Stench of Evil

I expect it to get picked up at Canne next year based on the performance thus far of Revenge of the Fallen.

dienekes96 wrote:Man, I'd hate to see what stories are bottom of the barrel for you if Revenge of the Fallen was middle of the road. Revenge of the Fallen was one of the worst plot/stories I have ever seen in 30 years of moviegoing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:I've seen it three times and apparently I know enough to check my higher brain functions at the door and allow myself to be entertained. Who would you worthies rather have directed it, Ingmar Bergman?

1) Maybe it is easier for some people to turn their brains off. They don't have as far to go.
2) There are gradations of films between Uwe Boll and Ingmar Bergman.
3) Like Die Hard.
4) Or Aliens.
5) Or Predator.
6) Or The Dark Knight.
7) Or The Bourne Identity.
8) Or any other dozens of decently made films which established a conflict, a plot, characters, and motivations before jumping into non-sensical action scenes.

The old "turn your brain off" excuse for ****ty cinema. Keep doing that. You do it long enough, you won't have to have ANY standards to be entertained. But based on seeing this turd three times, you might already be there.

Just for reference, I do indeed have standards. I believe Adam Sandler should be tried for crimes against Humanity, the only films with Jack Black that I've seen are King Kong and Enemy of the State and I have not seen any of the Saw movies. My favorite horror movie series is Candyman and any referrence to an Alien reboot threaten to drive me into an apoplectic rage. And by the way, the Bourne movies are just one chase scene/fight scene after another. Lather, rinse and repeat for the sequels. Same with Die Hard.

I am a big fan of the fourth alien movie and think it is the second best following right behind the second film. It has a lot of dark humor and the best CGI in the series.

G

Frazzled the Transformer...

Seriously I expected Jetfire to yell get off my lawn during the movie.

Hi,

I went to see the film with my 5 year old stepson yesterday. Quite enjoyed it, however:

1. Does anyone else feel that the robots are SO detailed and SO intricate that when two or more of them are on screen fighting it just looks like big, messy eye-torture? It's very hard to define wehre one robot starts and anotehr finishes, so I pretty much just gave up until one robot was hurled away- Ah yes, ok the blue one won that fight, etc.

2. Is there any need for shots of Megan Fox (?) bent over at every opportunity? Ok, she's fit (yawn) I get the idea. Next.

3. Why is the fallen worried about Prime yet decides to arrive when Prime is repaired? Don't get it, or maybe missed something.

4. The whole "fallen" idea is stupid. Should have been Unicron

5. Megatron was so much more badass in the cartoons in every respect.

6. Comic relief characters make me want to BBQ somebody.

7. The whole drug-cookie sequence is irrelevant.

8. The frat-party sequence, I don't believe for a second that fraternaties like that exist anywhere except film-land. If they do exist, then somone needs to be killed and eaten.

9. Is it just me, or where the robots far more powerful in the 1st film? Tanks and machine guns in the final sequences seemed to making a real mess of the 'bots.

In fact I've just decided that the film sucked and Michael Bay is exactly as depicted on South Park- "That's not a plot, that's special effects." "I don't know the difference." "I know you don't." (paraphrased)

Maybe the humans did more damage to the 'formers because they ahd time to develop special ammunition and such.

And the Fallen made a Pussy out of Megatron.

That and in the first film not only were they fighting something unknown at the time, but also doing so in an area with tres mucho potential for collateral damage, meaning it's hard to really get the toys out.

Remember the Autobots and 'Oomies have been hunting Decepticons for a couple of years at the start of the film, so I'd expect them to be better at it than the first five minutes.

True enough, special-issue ammo. Ok, that makes more sense

This F.A.Q. summs up the crappyness that is this movie. My favorit part is how people piloting a sub don't know what 5-1+1=.

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

Ah the wonders of the internet, where the arrogant and ignorant can force their opinions on the rest of humanity, and call those who disagree cretins.

The film, again, is aimed at a teenaged audience. That given, it delivers all you'd expect with aplomb. Review over.

Okay here goes, I'm about to become subject to a whole lot of net rage with the following statement....

I loved this film.

I didn't go into this film expecting it to have a deep and thought provoking plot, I went to see it for the same reason I watched the cartoons as a kid. Big robots fighting is cool and the fact they can transform into vehicles is even cooler. If you expected it to be anything else than an action packed blockbuster then what were you thinking?!?!
These are the types of films you are meant to go to and turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle. When I want deep high quality plot development I'll watch something like The Shawshank Redemption.
I'm a transformers fan and as much as I love G1 it was hardly immune from similar flaws that some have accused the films of. For a start, in the episode where Wheeljack invents the Dinobots, he purposely builds them with a low intellect and when activated they go mental and have to be shut down until Wheeljack makes a brain boosting thing to make them smarter. Now why the hell would you deliberately build a honking big robot capable of vast destruction and then give it the intellect of a roast potatoe?
I'm not knocking G1, I love it, it's just I want to point out that nostalgia can blind us sometimes.

Oh and a couple of things I noticed in previous posts:

1) The blue sports car isn't Blur, he's called Jolt (don't remember him from cartoons) and he can be seen at the end of the film jumpstarting Prime from Jetfire with his electric whips.

2) Several Decepticons that appear to have made a miraculous recovery since the first film aren't technically the same characters. For example: the Blackout 'clone' is not actually blackout, but another Decepticon called Grindor. Apparently the only difference between them is Grindor has a slightly different colour scheme. Bay just loved some of the vehicle and Decepticon models and wanted to use them again. Not without precedent I suppose, in G1 it was only their colours that made Starscream, Skywarp and Thundercracker different to each other.

Apparently it could have been worse.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah the wonders of the internet, where the arrogant and ignorant can force their opinions on the rest of humanity, and call those who disagree cretins.

The film, again, is aimed at a teenaged audience. That given, it delivers all you'd expect with aplomb. Review over.

You keep saying this, and it keeps being wrong. No-one has said they wanted the movie

As a summer blockbuster full of special effects and fighting robots, no-one is expecting high art. But outside of a very particular type of arthouse movie, it is expected that a film should be coherent. The various plot threads and character moments came and went without and many failed to resolve.

So stop pretending people are expecting high art out of the movie. A lot of people liked the first movie, which was hardly high art, but didn't like this one. Because the first one was a functional blockbuster script, this wasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Keyasa wrote:9. Is it just me, or where the robots far more powerful in the 1st film? Tanks and machine guns in the final sequences seemed to making a real mess of the 'bots.

I really liked that the Transformers were deadly when using the surprise of their transforming abilities to surprise military units, but were vulnerable in open battle. It gave a reason to them being 'robots in disguise'. I never really liked that part of the cartoon and the comic, where the Transformers were so far beyond Earth tech that there was never any point to using their vehicles forms to blend in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:Apparently it could have been worse.

Why is the Audi transformer Italian? Audi is German.

I'm with Wannabe Writer on this one. I just really REALLY enjoyed that movie, full of flaws or not.

cognitive dissonance itt

Keyasa wrote:2. Is there any need for shots of Megan Fox (?) bent over at every opportunity?

DEAR GOD, YES!!!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah the wonders of the internet, where the arrogant and ignorant can force their opinions on the rest of humanity, and call those who disagree cretins.

This is you on the left are on the left MDG.



Maybe some day you'll see the irony of calling people who choose not to accept things that are completely dumbed down cretins. Telling people they are being stupid for being smart is, well I think you can figure out the problem there (but not really but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).