Transformers: Dark of the Moon

I'm not a Bay fan... but isn't it a stretch for this guy's decision that sucky movie = sucky country? He's blaming America (in advance) for any success the film has.

If you read that whole review (I did) you'll be exhausted by the time you finish. It's a serious rant... on a lot of things that guy's mad about, beyond the film.

Ebert gave it 1 star and Roeper gave it a D. I still haven't seen Tree of Life... that's probably the antithesis of Transformers... and also next on my list of films to see :)
 
I dont know but for a movie based on toyline for kids its very inappropriate material after what i saw in part 2, it was sometimes so stupid ,scenes with 2 dogs bumping each other, was this in script? Its really what people enjoy seeing ?
 
Batutta said:
I thought the review was so over the top seething with hatred it became amusing.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That makes me feel much better... and I actually thought this also... for about half of it... but it's relentless. If it went on longer maybe it would get funny again... I guess I was out of sync. "uh-oh... yeah, it's funny again"... (seething with hatred is a good way to put it... now everybody else that reads it should laugh).
 
I kind of understand where he's coming from as I felt a similar way about Bay's earlier work. As he's refined his unique brand of 'bayhem' there is something to watch about his work on a purely abstract level that is fascinating, and there's a more innocent sense of fun about the 1st Transformers that made his crass, juvenile style not as offensive. But watching stuff like Armageddon made me feel violated, like someone had just crapped in my mouth. So I understand his hatred to a degree, and his frustration that audiences lap up his films like doughnut grease. But, yeah, he did take it too far.
 
Last edited:
I still like Ebert and Roeper for film reviews... When a trailer gets my attention I go to RT, but then I check with Ebert and Roeper... If one or both of those guys presents a good case for the film (or against it)... I'll usually go with their advice. So far it's worked out pretty well for me.

Ebert's review of Transformers is a lot more constructive and intelligent (than the rant-guy)... even though Ebert still says pretty much the same thing you just said.
 
Let me preface by saying that I am a fan of the first Transformers. Not afraid to say it. It was fun, it held my attention, and it made me laugh. It had a mostly coherent plot, even if I couldn't see what the heck was going on sometimes. I own it on Blu Ray and drop it in the PS3 when I'm writing or researching sometimes.

With that said...

There is something officially wrong with the machine that churns these things out.

At no point, while sitting in this movie, did I think that any aspect aside from the visual flare did it excel over the most typical film school plot points or anything in that arena. It's one thing for a movie to be fun, ask you to turn your brain off for a little while and watch a guy chase a girl while trying to keep his car's true identity a secret. It's another for you to ask me, as an at LEAST somewhat intelligent being, to sit and watch this same guy struggle to keep a hot girlfriend that he doesn't deserve, try to find a job at a place that you never showed me why he felt he was qualified for, and do a lot of crazy stunts that he has NEVER done before.

Not to mention the lack of narrative glue pulling all of these events together. No, the ONLY thing this movie had going for it was spectacle, and man this represents the PINNACLE (at the time of writing) of what filmmakers can achieve with a lot of money behind them. But that is a sad sad sad thing, because it is an incredible WASTE when attached to this ... thing.

At certain points, I tanked out in my seat, only to be awakened by Shia Lebouf screaming at someone.

Thankfully, that screaming awakened me at a point that was actually INTERESTING and made me pay attention. It's not a surprise that the action sequence did NOT involved Shia Lebouf or his uninteresting female friend, nor any of those other zany characters, within it.

By the time I walked out of that sham I felt like I did when I watched Sucker Punch: just out-and-out disappointed.

Thanks to both of these guys, though, I'm definitely re-evaluating the way I approach writing and creating. A good looking bad movie is still a bad movie.
 
Batutta said:
But watching stuff like Armageddon made me feel violated, like someone had just crapped in my mouth.
Click to expand...

That's probably because Armageddon was rife with melodrama, which is a violation in emotional 'naturalness' of response in and of itself.
 
Kholi said:
At certain points, I tanked out in my seat, only to be awakened by Shia Lebouf screaming at someone.
Click to expand...

Well, when you're acting against robots and explosions you can't see or react to, I guess the only performance choice is to arbitrarily emote.
 
Kholi said:
There is something officially wrong with the machine that churns these things out.
Click to expand...

Piracy. Downloading. The financial inability to put a hundred million or more on something you're taking a chance on -- i.e., something bold and different which could flop horribly. Fiscal reality.

The world isn't what it was even ten years ago.
 
David Jimerson said:
Piracy. Downloading. The financial inability to put a hundred million or more on something you're taking a chance on -- i.e., something bold and different which could flop horribly. Fiscal reality.

The world isn't what it was even ten years ago.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for years. Anytime "X" must be reduced to the lowest common denominator in order to ensure a profit... eventually "X" devolves into mediocrity (at best).

I guess films like this are made for a generation that doesn't appreciate "something real"... in favor of eye-popping fx.

 
This study on advertising for monkeys felt relevant to this discussion, especially this part--

Olwell says that developing a campaign for non-humans threw up some special challenges. "They do not have language or culture and they have very short attention spans," he says. "We really had to strip out any hip and current thinking and get to the absolute core of what is advertising."

"We're used to doing fairly complex and nuanced work. For this exploration we had to constantly ask ourselves, 'Could we be less finessed?'. We wanted the most visceral approaches."

"Monkeys have been shown in previous studies to really love photographs of alpha males and shots of genitals..."

Doesn't that kind of boil down Michael Bay's films to their essence? Alpha males and shots of genitals?
 
My favorite line from your original post link,

"Think of the cash a live-action [hardcore] porno based on the Barbie license would bring in."

I put "hardcore" in brackets because that's just being ridiculous... but... a "sex and the city" caliber, soft-core porn... that would never be CALLED that... under the Barbi license... probably would make a boat-load of cash. (ugh)

How could fundamental story-telling in movies like Jaws or the original Raiders be considered a risky proposition? Writers should be making more then anybody else in Hollywood.
 
MattinSTL said:
How could fundamental story-telling in movies like Jaws or the original Raiders be considered a risky proposition? Writers should be making more then anybody else in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

I think, because like the porn industry, writing is considered irrelevant. The porn industry realized most male consumers aren't interested in stories, then just want the sex, so it's devolved into short clips of jackhammer action. Big budget blockbusters are viewed as nothing more than a sequence of money shots, CGI porno as you will. The story is just there as an afterthought.
 
Dunno what you lot are on about, me n the nephews enjoyed it immensely! Don't they have art house cinemas for you snooty types in your cities?

I really aim to make fun blockbustery stuff like that one day, its awesome!
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Dunno what you lot are on about, me n the nephews enjoyed it immensely! Don't they have art house cinemas for you snooty types in your cities?

I really aim to make fun blockbustery stuff like that one day, its awesome!
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to fun blockbustery stuff as that's the stuff that got me interested in filmmaking in the first place. But there is a point where things degenerate into a lot of noise without coherence and purpose, and Bay is the worst offender of the bunch. Having fun and telling a good story are not mutually exclusive. Matt and I are just lamenting the fact that when push comes to shove, Hollywood would rather throw money at more CGI enhanced cacophony than good scripts as its a safer bet for them. I did enjoy the first Transformers. The second one was nearly unwatchable. I'll go see this one but I know exactly what to expect.
 
This movie looks appealing ( colors, shots ) but this is commercial of toyline for kids, every commercial with dogs making it or robots coming out from your "behind" would be banned, i repeat its TOYLINE FOR KIDS .This movie would be so much better without these things and other stupid moronic jokes like robots ghetto slamming their pseudo jokes.It would be just OK.
 
Batutta said:
I'm not opposed to fun blockbustery stuff as that's the stuff that got me interested in filmmaking in the first place. But there is a point where things degenerate into a lot of noise without coherence and purpose, and Bay is the worst offender of the bunch. Having fun and telling a good story are not mutually exclusive. Matt and I are just lamenting the fact that when push comes to shove, Hollywood would rather throw money at more CGI enhanced cacophony than good scripts as its a safer bet for them. I did enjoy the first Transformers. The second one was nearly unwatchable. I'll go see this one but I know exactly what to expect.
Click to expand...
...and therein lies the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top