Transformers: Dark of the Moon

[Batutta]

Relax guys....dont see nothing wrong with Wilbur's remark and post but im not a Mod ..so good day !

I'm relaxed...He just admitted he was trolling, and the forum guidelines are pretty clear it's not tolerated, for the exact reason this thread went a bit astray. I didn't mean I WANT Wiilbur to go elsewhere. Just that if he felt the urge to troll, do it someplace else like AICN. I'm not above doing that from time to time.

 

[Tom Shortridge]

I dont know that tune; but it sounds very similar to the music in "The Dark Night" and "Inception" (and a little bit like the music in "Tron: Legacy" which in turn sounded like the previous two).

"Mind Heist," by Zack Hemsey (the song from the Inception trailer):

and "It's Our Fight," from TF3, by Steve Jablonsky:

 

[Everts]

that thumbing sound is in every new sci fy / action trailer.... I think they got it from a video-copilot
I must admit Im not tired of hearing it yet ...bummmmm ..........bummmm........... bummmmmmm.
This music imo sounds alot better or modern..if 2003 feels like way back. The militairy /glory muisc of The Rock and Armaggedon were the parts that I didnt like that much.Not my taste it feels to over the top .
I would also like to say I have the greatest respect for sound and music designers...they give a movie that film look !

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

Please don't troll. It's not cool on this site, and it says so on the forum rules. Go elsewhere if you want to do that.

Omg? Go elsewhere? that's some impressive arrogance! I can't disagree lightheartedly with your ruthless bagint of another mans creative work? If this is the case then gladly!

 

[Batutta]

Omg? Go elsewhere? that's some impressive arrogance! I can't disagree lightheartedly with your ruthless bagint of another mans creative work? If this is the case then gladly!

I clarified further on. I meant if you felt the urge to troll go elsewhere. Apologies if it seemed like to was telling you to get lost. I would never suggest you have no right to express your own opinion. But there are guidelines around here to keep this place civil, guidelines I myself have crossed on occasion. Again, apologies.

 

[David Jimerson]

OK, that's quite enough about that. Please drop it, now. Talk about the movie.

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

that thumbing sound is in every new sci fy / action trailer.... I think they got it from a video-copilot I must admit Im not tired of hearing it yet ...bummmmm ..........bummmm........... bummmmmmm.This music imo sounds alot better or modern..if 2003 feels like way back. The militairy /glory muisc of The Rock and Armaggedon were the parts that I didnt like that much.Not my taste it feels to over the top .I would also like to say I have the greatest respect for sound and music designers...they give a movie that film look !

I also recognised some sound effects from star craft! Very cool!

 

[agcohn]

I am simply pointing to the idea that I feel Post Memento Nolan is just as empty and meaningless as Bay. Just because Nolan is "darker" and supposedly "deeper" he is overrated to the point of people calling him the greatest filmmaker of our times. Honestly, I dislike both of them, but I prefer Bay because he does not pretend to be anything more than he really is.

Funny thing is that we are all critiquing Transformers 3. That to me in and of itself is ironic.

I agree with you that Nolan's movies are not as deep as they pretend to be, but Nolan still has much better command of his stories than Bay.

Most of Michael Bay's movies end up boring the crap out of me, because they are the same thing over and over again.

Inception is the only one of Nolan's films that I found boring.

 

[Nektonic]

You know what toy line Bay should tackle next with his signature winning combination of schlock and grotesque amounts of money? Dino Riders, F%#* Yeah! Who wouldn't want to see that in glorious IMAX 8K 4D? I smell box office gold.

View attachment 36204

Apparently Spielberg is contemplating the idea of producing some sort of Jurassic Park 4, or even a reboot/remake of the first film. I wouldn't be surprised if Bay got the job seeing that Spielberg was one of the producers on all three Transformers movies.

I agree with you that Nolan's movies are not as deep as they pretend to be, but Nolan still has much better command of his stories than Bay.

Most of Michael Bay's movies end up boring the crap out of me, because they are the same thing over and over again.

Inception is the only one of Nolan's films that I found boring.

This same type of criticism was hurled at Ridley Scott's Alien and Blade Runner back in the day, and both are now considered to be classics. Look at any 'best of' sci-fi movie list and both of those films are usually placed within the top five, nipping at the heels of Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey. And it is not because Alien and Blade Runner are merely praised for their attention to detail, style, and expert world-building, but because both films have a lot to say (both about the time they were made and about what the future may bring).

I think some of Nolan's work (Inception mainly) will stand the test of time, whereas Bay's stuff might not.*



* Ironically, before Transformers, Bay directed The Island, which while not on the level of similar films like Blade Runner or The Matrix, was a nice sci-fi action film. It actually had a genuine heart, much more ambition and sincere emotion than any of Bay's previous efforts, plus some interesting ideas on cloning and organ harvesting and how those things might come to pass in the near future. The Island felt like it was the first sign of Bay evolving beyond the type of summer blockbuster film he had normally done up to that time. Since it didn't do well at the box office, and because Bay didn't "consult" with his supposed "master" Jerry Bruckheimer before taking the job, The Island was sort of considered Bay's downfall at the time. He then rebounded a couple of years later with Transformers. I am not surprised to see him playing it safe over the past few years with the Transfomers sequels.

 

[shorty15]

Then . . . why did you go see it?

I lost a bet. Actually, I went to go see The Tree of Life but it was so dim in there with those stupid 3D glasses that I accidentally walked into the wrong theater. Ok, I'll come clean. I am madly in love with Megan Fox and I wrongly assumed that she would be in the next Transformers film cause, you know, she was the only reason why I saw the other two. I kept thinking, "Who the hell is this british bloke? Where is Megan Fox! I wan't Megan Fox back!". There, I said it, you happy?

 

[David Jimerson]

I lost a bet. Actually, I went to go see The Tree of Life but it was so dim in there with those stupid 3D glasses that I accidentally walked into the wrong theater. Ok, I'll come clean. I am madly in love with Megan Fox and I wrongly assumed that she would be in the next Transformers film cause, you know, she was the only reason why I saw the other two. I kept thinking, "Who the hell is this british bloke? Where is Megan Fox! I wan't Megan Fox back!". There, I said it, you happy?

Gotta say, the hostility you're exhibiting in this thread borders on the same kind of trolling I just said something about.

It's just a movie, people. Calm down.

 

[Scott F]

lol

Did you just say AI was epic?

Speaking of worthless piles of crap...

Seriously?
You really don't like AI? I guess you don't have children, right?

Just thinking about that film makes me misty-eyed.

 

[agcohn]

This same type of criticism was hurled at Ridley Scott's Alien and Blade Runner back in the day, and both are now considered to be classics. Look at any 'best of' sci-fi movie list and both of those films are usually placed within the top five, nipping at the heels of Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey. And it is not because Alien and Blade Runner are merely praised for their attention to detail, style, and expert world-building, but because both films have a lot to say (both about the time they were made and about what the future may bring).

I think some of Nolan's work (Inception mainly) will stand the test of time, whereas Bay's stuff might not.

Alien and Blade Runner are not boring at all. They might be slow moving and confusing at times, especially on first watch, but they have genuinely compelling characters and ideas, and that it is why they have become classics. Both of these films had depths to their stories and worlds that cannot be fully appreciated on first watch.

Inception didn't have a single interesting character, except for the Cillian Murphy character. A switch in my brain went off about 3/4 of the way through the movie, when they got to the dream level that looked like a generic action sequenced ripped off from a James Bond film, when I thought to myself "Wow... I literally do not care what any of these people are doing."

 

[vcassel]

I agree with you that Nolan's movies are not as deep as they pretend to be...

While I agree with this statement, I think you may be missing the point, or maybe I just see this from a different angle. The genius of a Christopher Nolan film is that it tricks the audience into thinking they're smarter than they are in order to better emotionally tie in the themes. I really feel this is by design. He knows exactly what his audience will be feeling every step of the way. To me it's not so much whether the logic holds up when scrutinized, it's how I feel when I'm watching it. If there's anything I find degraded about the modern era of film it's that people tend to over-intellectualize films rather than allow themselves to really feel them. Though, there may not be many films being made with much to feel anyway.

 

[Nektonic]

Inception didn't have a single interesting character, except for the Cillian Murphy character. A switch in my brain went off about 3/4 of the way through the movie, when they got to the dream level that looked like a generic action sequenced ripped off from a James Bond film, when I thought to myself "Wow... I literally do not care what any of these people are doing."

I think this is probably why I liked Inception and you did not. As you say, the characters didn't interest you. I found them interesting, and in turn that meant the film was compelling to me.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Neither of us are wrong because everyone views and rates any given film differently. Just that it might explain the cause for two differing opinions on Inception.

If there's anything I find degraded about the modern era of film it's that people tend to over-intellectualize films rather than allow themselves to really feel them. Though, there may not be many films being made with much to feel anyway.

I think that is an excellent point. As for Transformers, I don't think people were expecting it to be some intellectual exercise in cinema, but some of the reviews maybe castrate it a little too much by comparing it to the wrong types of films. Having said that, after seeing the first two Transformers films, I am not interested in this new one. The way they are made, written, etc... is just not my cup of tea. In this day and age, there is plenty of other things for me to entertain myself with, so I don't see getting bent out of shape over it. I'll just skip it.

 

[shorty15]

It was a lame attempt at humor, no hostility intended. This is a film discussion thread and I am allowed to express my opinion, even if there is a bit of sarcasm sprinkled in.

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

Ok, cleaned up my reply a bit, I hope there is nothing offensive below. I respect you all and love your different opinions, no progress without difference!

Apologies for any previous offenses, definitely not my intention.


Below is what I hope will be a somewhat intelligent (not something that comes naturally to me heh heh) argument for why I think Dark of the Moon is brilliant.



What I love about Michael Bay, Matthew Vaughn and Tony Scott movies is the fast pacing and total understanding of the target market.

Outside of the more contemplatory viewership (the thinkers and critics), we have an average worldwide viewer base which is predominantly 'youth'.
If you want to turn a profit, that is exactly where your movie should be pointed.

I did an industrial psychology course or two along with some exciting study on Barna institute statistics to help me with media planning (part of my job back then).
Don't ask me for references for this stuff, I can't remember where I heard half of it! Just paint me as a 15 year old liar if you need to, though, you might find some of this stuff interesting:


(Wilbur sucks his thumb a bit and continues):

The average attention span was something like 20 minutes a few years back, with (if I remember correctly) 20 second intervals between loss of concentration peaks.
Basically something catches your attention and you think about it for a bit then kinda catch up with your movie a few seconds later.
After 20 minutes, if a lecturer or teacher or preacher or movie or whatever has not grabbed your attention, you go into a kind of negative thought cycle where you lose interest, not because you disagree with the content, but because the presentation failed to grab your attention in an entertaining manner.

Some tech boffin at a seminar of some sort said "We have officially passed from the information age to the entertainment age, if the youth don't find something entertaining, they simultaneously will not find it informative" (or something along those lines).

I don't know how accurate that statement is, but I apply those principles in all my projects (I really love all things 'youthy') and it works for me.

So to successfully crack the broader viewer base (youth), you need to have something fun, quirky or shiny happening literally every few seconds! They (youth) talk about moments in a movie like we discuss an entire movie and therein lies the secret to MB's success.

Star Wars and Twilight have 'ooh' and 'Ahh' moments relevant to their target audience almost non stop. With twilight it is abs and sparkles and with Star Wars it's shiny stuff going pew pew.

The stories are so simplistic and uncomplicated that the movie itself is just filled with entertaining moments all over the place to fill in the gaps and entertain the audience in an informative manner around specific characters.

So... As you may guess, I have a very similar attention span to the average teen (Touch of ADHD) and thus REALLY enjoy these quirky, simplistic movies.
I find them highly entertaining and very inspiring. Those little one liner jokes and wisdom nuggets that Bay throws in randomly are real sweet spots for me.

Nolan nails it too. But he manages to balance that short attention span viewership with wonderfully rich character development and a really powerful sense of scale in his action scenes.
MB never quite lands the 'geez that's huge' effect for me but he does land the 'geez that's cool' effect!

Avatar is the ultimate 'ooh' and 'aah' fest with lots of entertaining and 'informative' things happening non-stop - It nails the money making recipe head on by reaching the contemplators and the Entertainment whores with the same intensity.

I don't know if anyone is still reading this text wall, but Google 'Neurogenesis' to see how to really entertain people. Basically, the only way to create new cells in your brain once you are outside of infancy is through memory and learning and you literally feel better about yourself when this process is happening (it is a great weapon against depression).
If you are learning new things while being entertained, you will walk out of the presentation feeling very good about yourself and life in general.

I don't think MB and co are necessarily aware of this Biological pot of awesome, but it is definitely a massive contributor to their success. Big, shiny, futuristic props and talking robots are new, cool and very entertaining. The young mind will eat it up like free sweets at a refuge camp!


Does this make the average viewer stupid? Hell no, it is simply a matter of acclimatization. Slow paced movies simply don't cut it any more, youngsters get the point faster than we think they do. There is no new story under the sun, the new viewer has been watching rehashed versions of every imaginable story on free TV, pay TV and VOD since childhood.

They no longer go to movies to see something new, they go to 'experience' a story in a better way. Good guys always win and if they don't the movie 'sux'.

Thus, attacking simplistic story lines with a million random pieces of entertainment thrown in to fill the two hours is attacking progress.
It may be bad progress, but it is where we are going.


I think the DSLR movement is the best thing that could have happened to film making.
Suddenly, millions of baby film makers were born all over the world.
People who would never have stood a chance in the high risk arena... and thus we will see hundreds of thousands of really interesting movies start to crop up on all five of the available platforms (Mobile, Internet, TV, DVD, Cinema).

Genres will become like music has - hundreds of options specifically for your taste within your genre of choice.
Until then, the big screen will be dominated by youth targeted material.

This is why I do not enjoy these mud slinging fests at another man's creative work.
It's like going to watch a Justin Bieber concert and giving it a bad review because it is not Jazz. ;")

Surely Transformers should be reviewed within it's specific target audience parameter?


My 16 year old nephew and my 14 year old nephew rate Dark of the Moon as their favorite of the three.

This means that MB has nailed it.

0.02c

 

[Nuno Dias]

Wilbur thanks for that post, it was a great read. I'm now curious about "Neurogenesis", and will Google it after I write this.

I think you make a very smart analysis of what it is a Michael Bay film. But I must say that I also disliked this film very much, but the truth is, I really wanted to like it! So I left the cinema with a lot of emotions, for one, I was sad that I didn't like the film I so much wanted to enjoy, but also pissed off because I felt like an "outsider" in the all experience, like; am I too old for this...? (i'm 37...)

But I am a sucker for big blockbuster entertainment, and never miss a MB film in the summer. And I too, probably fall into the short attention span category. But still, these two last Transformer films didn't work for me, I ended up not seeing the end on both of them, because I fell asleep...

I think that one other very important aspect to these youth oriented films, appart from the short, big and sweet concept is, empathy. Meaning, that I think kids love to see themselves in the story, they need to find someone in the film they can identify with, and take part in the adventure through their own eyes. And I think that this was the bigest weakness in these two last films, it seems as if these films don't know whom they are about, are they about Shia, or about the Autobots?

I think we all know that MB wanted his films to be about the Robots in general (and understandably why), but that leaves no room for the human characters in the films, no room for that connection. Hence the reason why the original writers of the first Transformers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, didn't want to take on the second film, and were totally off this third one. They, too, believed there was no more magic left after the first film.

In my opinion, the first film succeeded in this aspect very well. As it was mainly about Shia's character (a regular looser kid) discovering this wonderful and fantastic world of out of space Robots! But then for the two next sequels, this magic was gone, there was nowhere else to go with his character, and therefore, the relationship of the audience with him (and the characters), suffered. But can you convince the studio exec to say no to 1 billion+ in revenues from two more sequels? Especially from a studio like Dreamworks that needs every penny they can make to stay in business? Of course not. F%#! the magic, right?

Maybe what helped you having a good time watching the film, was the fact that you probably watched it with your kids, and they most certainly liked it (although they might forget about it in two months) and your experience was heightened because of them. No harm in that, I wish I had watch the film around some kids as well, it might have helped me get in the zone.

I see MB films as big rock shows, so loud that they'll get everyone's attention. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... But I wish I will keep seeing many more of his films throughout the years, hopefully good ones!

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

Maybe what helped you having a good time watching the film, was the fact that you probably watched it with your kids, and they most certainly liked it (although they might forget about it in two months) and your experience was heightened because of them. No harm in that, I wish I had watch the film around some kids, it might have helped me get in the zone.

I see MB films as big rock shows, so loud that they'll get everyone's attention. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... But I wish I will keep seeing many more of his films throughout the years, especially good ones!

I think you are right there Nuno! Watching that movie with it's intended target market is a whole other experience. Getting bumped excitedly and pulled into their excitement at different points really is like a rock concert! I have a feeling I would enjoy the movie a lot less without a 14 year old making happy noises next to every time something cool happens on screen.
I can't wait for Michael bay to take on a space saga (Freelancer would be epic) or something like a Starcraft movie. He just knows his market so damn well.

 

[Batutta]

Some interesting insights there Wilbur, and I can't really dispute any of its observations, but I mostly think it is the wrong way to go about making movies with this information as one's guiding principles. I have no doubt Bay approaches his films this way, as a string of cool movie moments in search of a story. Nolan succeeds in his way because he works from the bottom up, thinking about what he wants to say with his premise and then creating moments that work within that context. That seems to be a more honest and reliable approach, even if its harder to get right. Also, there are some emotions that you just can't rush. A recent example for me is Super 8, which never creates a real moment of Spielbergian awe and wonder even though it was clearly trying, and that's because the modern need to keep things moving at all times won't allow that. Yeah, you can hold people's interest by waving something shiny and new in their face every few seconds and making a lot of noise, but that's not the only tool at a filmmakers disposal. Things like mood, suspense, an interesting dilemma for your character count for alot. I, personally, felt the Coen Brothers got more suspense from a couple of snakes at the climax of True Grit than any of Bay's CG enhanced histrionics. Of course, I'm old and lame, and didn't grow up with Youtube and cell phones and social networks and the million of other ways kids attention is fractured into a thousand pieces these days.