Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon [** SPOILERS FROM POST 823 ONWARD **]

hellboy99

Have to say it wasn't a great film

The first one I thought was great, ROTF was bad and as for this latest effort, well it was better than ROTF but not by much.

Galvasean

Am I the only one who thinks DOTM was worse than ROTF?
At least ROTF had that epic forest fight.

don ramo

michael bay recycles

http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/07/01/transformers-3-the-island-michael-bay/


now that i think of it, isnt it weird that michael bay made the island in 2005 and it was big old flop, than 2 years later some idiot giave $150m to make transformers, then another idiot gave him $200m to make transformers 2, (which got shredded by the critics,) then after 2 mindless films, with hugh gaping plot holes and massive fan backlash, another idiot gave him another $200m to make transformers 3, and yet some how its looking like the 3 films will make around $2.5Billion between them, the only conclusion i take from this is that we havent seen the end of michael "blows sh1t up real good" bay

i liked T3 sh1t blew up real good:D

While I've yet to see Dark of the Moon, I think that Bay gets far too much blame for the films shortcomings. Spielberg has to shoulder just as much blame if not more when it comes to the shortcomings of the script and the edit, it's not like Bay gets final cut on the film.

NunianVonFuch

Deleted User wrote: »

While I've yet to see Dark of the Moon, I think that Bay gets far too much blame for the films shortcomings. Spielberg has to shoulder just as much blame if not more when it comes to the shortcomings of the script and the edit, it's not like Bay gets final cut on the film.

I'm pretty sure he does as he's said in interviews that Steve's a very hands-off producer. If you can link to something that says different though I'd be really interested as it would be a massive taint on Spielberg's career!

As for the movie the last 45 minutes are awesome, but even then stuff still makes no sense. You really have to forgive everything and just look at the pretty colours to enjoy the film at all!

don ramo

Deleted User wrote: »

While I've yet to see Dark of the Moon, I think that Bay gets far too much blame for the films shortcomings. Spielberg has to shoulder just as much blame if not more when it comes to the shortcomings of the script and the edit, it's not like Bay gets final cut on the film.

spielberg was only an ex-producer, probably got paid a million quid to say it looked good, so they could tack his name to it, either that or his production company done some set-pieces of the film, same as cameron and that sanctum film, id find it hard to believe he had a lot of input into it other than some 3D info/hardware,

this is one of 4 guys who produced it, so they had the most input, some woefull films in there TBF, weird how you never really hear about producers when they have to most say in any film,

ah and sole writer

don ramo

don ramo wrote: »

spielberg was only an ex-producer, probably got paid a million quid to say it looked good, so they could tack his name to it, either that or his production company done some set-pieces of the film, same as cameron and that sanctum film, id find it hard to believe he had a lot of input into it other than some 3D info/hardware,

this is one of 4 guys who produced it, so they had the most input, some woefull films in there TBF, weird how you never really hear about producers when they have to most say in any film,

ah and sole writer

Kruger is a hack but I imagine that there was at least a handful of other writers involved. It's the kind of film which would have underwent a number of rewrites and been script doctored to hell.

Normally an executive producer would have little control, it would mainly be the producer who took the reins in post and take the film to completion but when Spielberg is executive producer you know damn well that he was far more involved than a traditional exec. I'm not saying that we should blame Spielberg for the films shortcomings but to heap all the blame on Bay is unfair.

constitutionus

you know the sad thing ?

i ended up watching "the ultimate doom" on youtube last night and the 25yr old cartoon holds up better than this film.

at the very least actions have consequences, the story - mad as it is- makes coherent sense with some genuine intrigue involved in it , and it actually has moral conflicts (prime having to choose between devestating earth or obliterating cybertron - and choosing to devestate earth )

sometimes i wonder how these writers can sleep at night getting paid millions for this shyte. the only think i can think of is that scene from the simpsons with mcbain and the critic.

hellboy99

constitutionus wrote: »

you know the sad thing ?

i ended up watching "the ultimate doom" on youtube last night and the 25yr old cartoon holds up better than this film.

+1

Bring back the 80's I say

Handsome Bob

Off to see it in 3D, though my optimism is dead in the water after the Bay Acolyte Galva gave his verdict.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Galvasean

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Off to see it in 3D, though my optimism is dead in the water after the Bay Acolyte Galva gave his verdict.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Optimist Prime has fallen in battle...

constitutionus

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Off to see it in 3D, though my optimism is dead in the water after the Bay Acolyte Galva gave his verdict.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

probably for the best.

if you go in with LOW enough expectations you may actually end up enjoying it !



im going again with my mate next week to see it in 3D and im interested to see if the ROTF effect kicks in . i.e i bizarrely enjoyed it the second time around once i knew what i was getting into.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

While I've yet to see Dark of the Moon, I think that Bay gets far too much blame for the films shortcomings. Spielberg has to shoulder just as much blame if not more when it comes to the shortcomings of the script and the edit, it's not like Bay gets final cut on the film.

TBH Bay is the posterboy of this franchise - it's his name plastered all over posters. Spielberg should know better, but Bay agrees to direct them each and every time, and let's be honest he does have a directorial style of his own. Hell, in a way he's almost better then Brett Ratner as he actually has a signature style as opposed to just blandness!

There's a lot of people responsible for these films. But a director will ultimately shoulder much of the responsibility for a film's strength or weaknesses. It's not necessarily fair, but it's the way it always is.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

TBH Bay is the posterboy of this franchise - it's his name plastered all over posters. Spielberg should know better, but Bay agrees to direct them each and every time, .

Re: Spielberg, I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what he's doing. He's giving the go ahead to a franchise which he knows is considered rubbish by critics, but it gets bums on seats and makes a humongous load of money. If it aint broke, don't fix it is Hollywood's way. As long as these movies keep raking in billions of dollars they'll keep making movies like them. Batman wasn't rebooted because Batman & Robin was a terrible film. The franchise got redone because the films were no longer making the money the studio wanted.
Critics be damned. Money >>>>>> Critical acclaim.
As the Kingpin would say, "It's nothing personal, just business."

robbie1

can people not just go and enjoy the movie everyone knows what its goin to be like
i enjoyed it very much it does what its supposed to do ie entertain for a couple of hours,

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Re: Spielberg, I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what he's doing. He's giving the go ahead to a franchise which he knows is considered rubbish by critics, but it gets bums on seats and makes a humongous load of money. If it aint broke, don't fix it is Hollywood's way. As long as these movies keep raking in billions of dollars they'll keep making movies like them. Batman wasn't rebooted because Batman & Robin was a terrible film. The franchise got redone because the films were no longer making the money the studio wanted.
Critics be damned. Money >>>>>> Critical acclaim.
As the Kingpin would say, "It's nothing personal, just business."

Indeed, but once upon a time's Spielberg's name was once synonymous with unusually high quality mainstream cinema - a 'produced by' Steven Spielberg credit was only granted to labours of love like The Goonies, Gremlins or Back to the Future. These days, his name is over a huge array of different films. Obviously he's still a force to be reckoned with in Hollywood, and you can't begrudge an individual who has had so much success. But where once Steven Spielberg involvement was a rather exciting prospect, these days it's hard to say if it means anything (not just talking about Transformers here) - just check out his producer filmography on IMDB.

Been that way for a while though - according to IMDB his name is on The Flinstones credits :P

Galvasean

robbie1 wrote: »

can people not just go and enjoy the movie everyone knows what its goin to be like
i enjoyed it very much it does what its supposed to to ie entertain for a couple of hours,

That's the thing though, it really didn't ebntertain me for a couple of hours. I'd say I was entertained for about half an hour to forty minutes in total, which isn't a very good ratio for a two and a half hour film. I've been a big defender of the franchise (and Bay in general, not to mention the mindless actioner sub genre), but honestly can't recommend the movie.
As a technical achievement it's brilliant, but as entertainment it is underwhelming. A bit like eating an Abrekebabra out of a priceless ming vase...

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Indeed, but once upon a time's Spielberg's name was once synonymous with unusually high quality mainstream cinema - a 'produced by' Steven Spielberg credit was only granted to labours of love like The Goonies, Gremlins or Back to the Future. These days, his name is over a huge array of different films. Obviously he's still a force to be reckoned with in Hollywood, and you can't begrudge an individual who has had so much success. But where once Steven Spielberg involvement was a rather exciting prospect, these days it's hard to say if it means anything (not just talking about Transformers here) - just check out his producer filmography on IMDB.

Been that way for a while though - according to IMDB his name is on The Flinstones credits :P

Yeah, his name is just a way at selling more tickets. People see the name Spielberg and they automatically think of top quality films like Jaws, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List etc. If tehy think paying him one million to put his name on it will generate two million at the box office they'll do it.
Bit like all of those films that are 'presented' by Quentin Tarintino (whatever that means).

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah, his name is just a way at selling more tickets. People see the name Spielberg and they automatically think of top quality films like Jaws, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List etc. If tehy think paying him one million to put his name on it will generate two million at the box office they'll do it.
Bit like all of those films that are 'presented' by Quentin Tarintino (whatever that means).

Indeed. Tarantino ones are even worse, occasionally misleading people about who was actually directing it. I've heard tonnes of people who genuinely believe he directed Hostel.

constitutionus

i put the blame soley on bay as their his films.

BUT.

Speilberg is one of the few connected to this film with the clout to get away with smacking him upside the head and telling him to cop on, which he plainly didnt do at ANY stage in this franchise. so there is a smidegeon of blame to go to him too in terms of how they work as movies.

i'd disagree with ya a bit galvy, i think theres a good hour or so of goodness in this, but its definetly in the vein of pearl harbour.

i.e turn up about an hour into it or so to get the good stuff.

and hey, at least theres no ben affleck !

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Indeed. Tarantino ones are even worse, occasionally misleading people about who was actually directing it. I've heard tonnes of people who genuinely believe he directed Hostel.

Reminds me of an exchange I had with someone a while back...

Me: "Are you gonna see Inglourious Basterds?"
Him: "No. I lost all my respect for him when he made Hostel."
Me: "Y'know he didn't direct Hostel right?"
Him: "Yeah he did. His name is on the poster."

Actually, come to think of it, I think such exchanges occured a lot more than once!

Galvasean

Actually, have any Transformer fans made a fan-edit of ROTF where they 'trim the fat' so to speak? I recall hearing there were palns to do so ages ago but nothing since.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually, have any Transformer fans made a fan-edit of ROTF where they 'trim the fat' so to speak? I recall hearing there were palns to do so ages ago but nothing since.

I'd love a trimmed down version of DOTM, the first hour of it is completely pointless,

lose all the stuff with Sam working in the office and Dr Ken and all the homophobic jokes and most of the stuff with Frances McDormand

and theres an enteraining 90 minute movie in there somewhere

don ramo

krudler wrote: »

I'd love a trimmed down version of DOTM, the first hour of it is completely pointless,

lose all the stuff with Sam working in the office and Dr Ken and all the homophobic jokes and most of the stuff with Frances McDormand

and theres an enteraining 90 minute movie in there somewhere

yeah i never understand why that isnt done to more films, think of alexander in 2004, it had 18 producer credits and 5 lead producers:eek:, trimm it down, add a few scenes that were trown by the wayside in editing and they could possibly make a well paced 2 hour film, and thats just one example,

Jimmy Bottlehead

Hated the first Transformers movie. Seen Transformers 3 tonight and went in with very low expectations...

It was excellent! Well for a turn-your-brain-off movie, at least. Seen it in IMAX too which probably helped. Visually stunning, 3D effects were nice, sound was excellent (apart from the rock songs).

Shia LeBouf was a knob, new girl was literally the closest to female perfection I've ever seen. Rest of the cast did their jobs.

All told, this movie gave you explosions, fighting robots, a hot chick (with lots of tight clothing and skin on show), some laughs, and great effects. Can't complain really!

Handsome Bob

constitutionus wrote: »

probably for the best.

if you go in with LOW enough expectations you may actually end up enjoying it !

I think this may have been the deal, as I actually enjoyed it.

I remember when I watched ROTF that I had actually fallen asleep during the final act, but I was actually engrossed by the final act of DOTM. I honestly didn't feel frustration of it being 2 and a half hours long.

I enjoyed the 3D as well. It was obvious alright, but give me obvious 3D anyday over rip off 3D-in-name-only films.

I had a few beefs though.

I thought that Sam's dad was a total asshole.

I'm also slightly bemused at the development of the autobots, 3 films in and we still know f'all about them beyond Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. The Decepticons have more established characters ffs.

StonedParadoX

i saw it in Dun laoghaire cinema last night.. i enjoyed it .. i just hope theres going to be a reboot

i think bay ****ed up the whole trilogy

what the **** was up with the linkin part song at the very beginning?

did anyone get that??? .. i thought it was a disgrace!

Optimus Prime

Let me help everyone out here.

3D Effects top notch

Set pieces.. Brilliant

Acting Terrible

Story Ridonkulous.

Basically the same as the other 2 but with better 3D effects and believe it or not the blonde is a WORSE actress than Megan Fox.

Bay should be shot for destroying the transformers, too many generic robots walking around.. the Transformers should have been individual, recognisable, each with there own character, instead all the decepticons look the same and the autobots are sterotypes for the most part.

A waste of 3 films.

Handsome Bob

I didn't think she was all that bad. As Galva said, she didn't have a lot to work with.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

While I've yet to see Dark of the Moon, I think that Bay gets far too much blame for the films shortcomings. Spielberg has to shoulder just as much blame if not more when it comes to the shortcomings of the script and the edit, it's not like Bay gets final cut on the film.

I disagree. Bay is the director, and for better or worse, directors are considered the auteurs of their films. Bay takes a "a film by" credit so he clearly vews himself in this light as well. If he was interfered with, fair enough, but there's no evidence of that. How many billions has Bay's previous films made? What reason has Spielberg to get creatively involved? No, if the film sucks it's Bay's fault and no one else's.

And I'd imagine Bay almost certainly did have final cut. Mind you, having final cut is fairly meaningless these days. It's often shared with somebody else or has dozens of stipulations.