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

Beefy78

I just don't see how or why big flashy fight scenes are redundant in a film about big flashy fight scenes.

Doctor DooM

Beefy78 wrote: »

I just don't see how or why big flashy fight scenes are redundant in a film about big flashy fight scenes.

To be fair, that scene is pretty much pointless if you don't care about Prime. You're supposed to be rooting desperately for him.

It's also the only scene in the entire film where the fanboys agreed "that's my Optimus", to be fair. So while many think it fails on a cinematic level it's the only scene in the whole film most of the fanboys agree was even worthy to lick the shoes of the animated film from the 80s. (Before anyone has a go at that statement, it's fanboy logic. It's like a Terminator, relentless, and cannot be argued with )

Galvasean

re: the sabre fight in TPM. Personally I thought it was a load of over coreogrphed balls. They prance around doing stupid pirouettes and backwards spin. Don't turn your back on an opponent in a asword fight, it's a good way to die....
As Faceman said, the fights in the original trilogy were incredibly tense affairs, which makes them more interesting.

Doom, I'm told the 1986 Transformers movie has flaws. Could this be true? Nah... It's perfect.

constitutionus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

To be fair, that scene is pretty much pointless if you don't care about Prime. You're supposed to be rooting desperately for him.

It's also the only scene in the entire film where the fanboys agreed "that's my Optimus", to be fair. So while many think it fails on a cinematic level it's the only scene in the whole film most of the fanboys agree was even worthy to lick the shoes of the animated film from the 80s. (Before anyone has a go at that statement, it's fanboy logic. It's like a Terminator, relentless, and cannot be argued with )

pretty much my feeling on the issue.

note for note that scene nailed what prime was as a character for 20 years in the comics, right down to his conscern for sam being what got him killed.

its the only scene that captured what TF shouldve been as a live action film IMO.

and then bay went off and got a hard on for devestator balls.

i think thats why people get annoyed at how crap the TF films are, we KNOW the feckers can get it right but the director insists on indulging himself.

dont get me wrong i enjoy the films for what they are but when i see optimus prime essentially executing a defeated foe at the start of the film, i dont see what i call optimus prime.

that'd be more grimlocks tactic.

As an aside though i think the scene that introduces ravage is a close second in terms of faithfullness to the character. he did manage to covertly inflitrate that base and they even used his hip missiles !

Galvasean

constitutionus wrote: »

dont get me wrong i enjoy the films for what they are but when i see optimus prime essentially executing a defeated foe at the start of the film, i dont see what i call optimus prime.

A more appropriate thing would have been to take the Decepticon in for questioning, especially when later he's asked what the Fallen is and has no idea.
"Gee Optimus, I guess you're regretting shooting the only witness we had in the head!" :rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

Seems Michael Bay is getting a bit annoyed with people slating the new movie.Here's the link and trailer on the way soon.http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47599

Galvasean

Bay is still his angry self I see. I'll wait til the trailer before I judge.. wait, I did that with RotF and proclaimed it the greatest thing ever.
Crap! They're still getting my money anyhow.

BlitzKrieg

They're still getting my money anyhow.

not mine rotf passed a threshold so bad that I couldnt bare to watch another entry in the series.

grames_bond

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

not mine rotf passed a threshold so bad that I couldnt bare to watch another entry in the series.

bookmarked for when you inevitably see the new movie!

norrie rugger

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

not mine rotf passed a threshold so bad that I couldnt bare to watch another entry in the series.

Well untill some brave (sacrificial) Film Forum members see it first.

Galvasean

norrie rugger wrote: »

Well untill some brave (sacrificial) Film Forum members see it first.

If I come out of the cinema saying it was good don't take my word for it. Spielberg basically owns me.

norrie rugger

Galvasean wrote: »

If I come out of the cinema saying it was good don't take my word for it. Spielberg basically owns me.

You were his bitch from the day JP came out, i imagine;)

johnny_ultimate

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

not mine rotf passed a threshold so bad that I couldnt bare to watch another entry in the series.

Unless the reviews and word of mouth suggest that every flaw from the previous films has been fixed, I'm with you.

RotF is the one film whose awfulness actually offended me. I came out of the cinema feeling as if Michael Bay had just kicked me in the balls for being so stupid. And that's before you even get to the genuinely offensive content of the movie itself. The quality level was spectacularly low, but the disrespect of various ethnic and gender groups was the second kick in the gonads, and that have relegated the film to the deepest recesses of cinematic hell.

ALL I WANT IS GIANT ROBOTS KICKING THE **** OUT OF EACH OTHER (and that's not a sentence I say everyday). Is that so hard, Bay, is that so hard?

faceman

Galvasean wrote: »

Bay is still his angry self I see. I'll wait til the trailer before I judge.. wait, I did that with RotF and proclaimed it the greatest thing ever.
Crap! They're still getting my money anyhow.

I completely get this though. I grew up transformers and despite knowing how awful TF2 was and how much of an abortion TF3 will be, I will still part with my cash.

RickBockwinkle

Is it true one of the new transformers will be called "Spastic"? I heard this somewhere and have been unable to verify it.

jaykhunter

I need to have a quick rant!

If anyone has seen the first Transformers and didn't like it, shame on you for watching the 2nd one, knowing what Michael Bay's vision of TF is. Personally i take 'em for what they are, and can enjoy them. Now if you saw TF 1 & 2 and hated them , you've no business seeing the third, or when you see it, you've no right to complain! Stop giving him money and proving him right (fanboys'll watch any ol' crap), actually take a stand and don't watch it!

There are people who enjoy these films. Over $1.5 billions worth!

RickBockwinkle

This may sound bizarre, because I hate the Transformers movies - and didn't go see the 2nd one - but Michael Bay isn't the problem with those films. It wasn't actually his "vision", it was Steven Spielberg (the producer of the franchise) who decided the film should be about "a boy and his car" instead of transforming robots with giant lasers, and the scriptwriters who thought a pissing Bumblebee would be a good way to go with the property.

My big problem with Bay is that, despite the fact he's a great visual director, he just doesn't give a crap about what's in the script. His history of working on commercials means he just follows what's on the page and makes it look stylish, regardless of the quality of the story.

Galvasean

RickBockwinkle wrote: »

Is it true one of the new transformers will be called "Spastic"? I heard this somewhere and have been unable to verify it.

Not in the movie. However there is a toy transformer due out soon called spastic. The name is being changed for the UK release after people got offended.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330994/Transformer-Spastic-UK-launch-scrapped-fears-cause-offence.html

While it is seen as a derogatory word in Britain, spastic is used widely in the U.S. as a casual word for clumsiness or to describe someone who is overexcited.

Giggernaut

RickBockwinkle wrote: »

This may sound bizarre, because I hate the Transformers movies - and didn't go see the 2nd one - but Michael Bay isn't the problem with those films. It wasn't actually his "vision", it was Steven Spielberg (the producer of the franchise) who decided the film should be about "a boy and his car" instead of transforming robots with giant lasers

Spielberg's influence in the first film was the only reason it was any good in my opinion. There were some wonderful Spielberg moments in the first that were sadly missing in the second.
Two that come to mind is when Sam trys to hide the autobots from his parents around his house and the emergence of the autobot from the pool with the little girl. They are two wonderful moments that complemented the smash,bang wallop approach Bay has to directing.

Just look at the second movie its quite clear Spielberg took a back seat and let Bay try his hand at adding a human element ,failing miserably. One example that springs to mind is in the first movie I remember Sams mother being great comic relief while in the second she's this crazed,neurotic looney.

Spielberg's guidance added greatly to the first and sadly was very much lacking in the second which was a great shame indeed

Beefy78

jaykhunter wrote: »

I need to have a quick rant!

If anyone has seen the first Transformers and didn't like it, shame on you for watching the 2nd one, knowing what Michael Bay's vision of TF is. Personally i take 'em for what they are, and can enjoy them. Now if you saw TF 1 & 2 and hated them , you've no business seeing the third, or when you see it, you've no right to complain! Stop giving him money and proving him right (fanboys'll watch any ol' crap), actually take a stand and don't watch it!

There are people who enjoy these films. Over $1.5 billions worth!

I couldn't agree more. I was a huge Transformers fan as a kid and I love the Bay films because I consider them to be faithful to the spirit of the original, far more so in fact than many franchises from my youth which have had recent resurrections.

But if I didn't like the first two films then there's no way that I'd go to the third. If it offended me so much then I'd withdraw my financial support and do my bit to send a message to the studios that this is not the direction that I want the franchise to go in. It's so tiresome to see people filling up threads here and elsewhere about TF3 with moans about how rubbish it's going to be and how terrible the previous two were. They make stupid money so obviously a lot of people like them.

norrie rugger

Beefy78 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I was a huge Transformers fan as a kid and I love the Bay films because I consider them to be faithful to the spirit of the original, far more so in fact than many franchises from my youth which have had recent resurrections.

But if I didn't like the first two films then there's no way that I'd go to the third. If it offended me so much then I'd withdraw my financial support and do my bit to send a message to the studios that this is not the direction that I want the franchise to go in. It's so tiresome to see people filling up threads here and elsewhere about TF3 with moans about how rubbish it's going to be and how terrible the previous two were. They make stupid money so obviously a lot of people like them.

Do you guys read entire posts?

Most people I have seen post, in this forum, liked the 1st (even accepting that Bay will always have a very very pro american/republican slant) and hated the 2nd (me included)

Beefy78

norrie rugger wrote: »

Do you guys read entire posts?

Most people I have seen post, in this forum, liked the 1st (even accepting that Bay will always have a very very pro american/republican slant) and hated the 2nd (me included)

I'm not sure how that really changes anything I said....

People are perfectly entitled to like or dislike what they like or dislike. But people have been jumping all over this from day one. OMG the Transformer has facial hair!!!!1111. You know what to expect from a Michael Bay film and you know by now what to expect from a Michael Bay Transformers film.

Duggy747

The first film was awesome with fantastic special effects and a great score. Yea, it was cheesy in parts, blatant product placement (besides the obvious "concept cars") but overall I had a fun time watching it in the cinema................even if I was stuck beside a wierdo who kept laughing while looking at me

The 2nd film I was psyched for, I was expecting an advancement in the special effects but they didn't look as good. I think it was down to how the robots integrated into the scenes that made them look odd, the frame-rate of them didn't seem to match the overall speed of the film. I was so bored and, while not offended, I could see why people got their panties in a bunch over it's content. The score was also completely uninspired with corny Linkin Park instrumentals mixed in. Steve Jablonsky dropped the ball on that one.

It's the last Transformers film (for the moment) and, while it'll still lack in story, I'll imagine it'll turn out better than the 2nd film..................but who knows, right? Can't let the trailers fool me again like the 2nd one did. :pac:

Galvasean

Transformers fans have been whining about the Transformers movie franchise since it was first announced, long before we got to see what any of the robots would look like or heard any plot details. Bay now sees the old skool Transformers fans as whiney bitches so he does not give a damn what they (or should I say we?) think. In effect he has made himself (in his mind's eye at least) criticism proof. Now if anyone complains about anything in any of his Transformers movies, legitimate or not, he simply waves it away as being 'fanboy bitching' and looks at the bottom line (multi-million dolla box office gross and untold merchandise profit).
In a sense, some of the more hard core Transformers fans spoiled any chance of having the fanbase's voice heard early on, dismissing the films before seeing them. Now Bay and co. aren't willing to listen to even genuine criticisms. They've boxed themselves in.

johnny_ultimate

I must be alone in hating both Transformers films then. The first was bad (I wanted to kick the screen during the 'hiding in the garden' scene) although had a handful (I'm going to say two) of memorable scenes, like the introduction to the Autobots. But it all went to **** with slapstick comedy and confusing, bland direction. The second I only watched because it was pretty much the only English language film in the cinema, and suffice to say it was bad on all the same levels, but all those levels were multiplied by ten or so. Plus, overuse of the 21 Guns music cue made me an angry viewer!

I think what a lot of people forget when criticising the Transformers franchise is that it's one which is aimed at kids. While a number of people have a problem with the hiding in the garden scene, my 6-year-old brother loved it and tbh I have a feeling that scenes such as that were aimed at the under 10s.

I'm after rewatching Revenge of the Fallen and it really is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. Sure it's not high art but then again why would it be, it's a film in which giant robots kick the crap out of one another. For 150 minutes it kept me entertaining and tbh the Blu Ray looks absolutely astonishing. Most of the attempts at humour are juvenile and fall flat but they're thankfully few and far between. sure you could trim some of the fat, at least 30 minutes of could be cut especially the mother scenes.

My biggest complaint regarding the film is the same as the day I left the cinema after watching it, there was absolutely no need to include the character of Sam's room-mate. He's the only character who brings absolutely nothing to the film, he's like the towel from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy only less useful.

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what a lot of people forget when criticising the Transformers franchise is that it's one which is aimed at kids. While a number of people have a problem with the hiding in the garden scene, my 6-year-old brother loved it and tbh I have a feeling that scenes such as that were aimed at the under 10s.

I'm after rewatching Revenge of the Fallen and it really is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. Sure it's not high art but then again why would it be, it's a film in which giant robots kick the crap out of one another. For 150 minutes it kept me entertaining and tbh the Blu Ray looks absolutely astonishing. Most of the attempts at humour are juvenile and fall flat but they're thankfully few and far between. sure you could trim some of the fat, at least 30 minutes of could be cut especially the mother scenes.

My biggest complaint regarding the film is the same as the day I left the cinema after watching it, there was absolutely no need to include the character of Sam's room-mate. He's the only character who brings absolutely nothing to the film, he's like the towel from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galway only less useful.

Galway? lol

My problem with ROTF is the camera work. I could not distinguish one robot from the other. It just became a mash of metal
Also the deceptacons went from super tough robots, in the first, to cannon fodder, in ROTF.

Also they RUINED jetfire, for me

Vokes

Deleted User wrote: »

My biggest complaint regarding the film is the same as the day I left the cinema after watching it, there was absolutely no need to include the character of Sam's room-mate.

Wasn't he necessary to get Sam in contact with Robowarrior aka Agent Simmons though?

norrie rugger

norrie rugger wrote: »

Galway? lol

My problem with ROTF is the camera work. I could not distinguish one robot from the other. It just became a mash of metal
Also the deceptacons went from super tough robots, in the first, to cannon fodder, in ROTF.

Also they RUINED jetfire, for me

God damned spell check, once I enter Galway and now every time I write Galaxy it auto corrects for some reason.

Vokes wrote: »

Wasn't he necessary to get Sam in contact with Robowarrior aka Agent Simmons though?

There are a hundred easier ways to make the connection between Sam and Simmons, the roommate aspect seemed like he was forced in there simply to spoon in some more crotch jokes.

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what a lot of people forget when criticising the Transformers franchise is that it's one which is aimed at kids. While a number of people have a problem with the hiding in the garden scene, my 6-year-old brother loved it and tbh I have a feeling that scenes such as that were aimed at the under 10s.

I'm after rewatching Revenge of the Fallen and it really is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. Sure it's not high art but then again why would it be, it's a film in which giant robots kick the crap out of one another. For 150 minutes it kept me entertaining and tbh the Blu Ray looks absolutely astonishing. Most of the attempts at humour are juvenile and fall flat but they're thankfully few and far between. sure you could trim some of the fat, at least 30 minutes of could be cut especially the mother scenes.

My biggest complaint regarding the film is the same as the day I left the cinema after watching it, there was absolutely no need to include the character of Sam's room-mate. He's the only character who brings absolutely nothing to the film, he's like the towel from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy only less useful.

best thing about the TF films ?

DVD.

You can skip past all the juvenile crap bay insists on sticking in it and essentially edit a half decent film for youself alone.

when the film is then just 90% transformers its not that bad.



i actually think the third one might be an alright film. the second suffered from the writers strike and the greater input that gave bay.

ROTF is one massive cluster **** but there was some good ideas in there, they just got lost amongst the insane desire for ball jokes and 360 shots of megan fox.

that said i'd love a reboot that gets back to the original idea and essential designs. prime shows they can update the characters and still keep their look, does my head in they didnt bother their arse doing the same for the others besides jazz - who they prompltly killed.