There is no way I’m sucking the teat of Micheal Bay just for the one or two tiny morsels of not-as-badness that he unwittingly lactates once in a blue moon. I’d rather suck on the teats of filmmakers who actually respect their audience and just put up with the one or two not-as-good projects that they release once in a blue moon. I just feel a though it’s my free time being better spent. Nothing of value will be lost, even if I miss out on something temporarily good from time to time.

I really have no quarrel with that position, but I'm left wondering why you felt the need to comment on this movie specifically when you haven't seen it. That has been my objection throughout this thread: first Ray, then Sorrow, now you all seeing fit to comment on a project even though you have no idea what you're talking about. Have no interest in his work? Fine! I don't blame you. Avoid it. But don't give editorials when you haven't watched the thing. If you're going to avoid it, avoid it. If you're going to comment about it, have the integrity to actually familiarize yourself with the material in question. Don't try to play it both ways. Bay doesn't deserve that, and the rest of us don't, either.

Reichu said she would be avoiding these films, so I chimed in with why I would personally stay well away. This seems to be a thread about Bay, and even more specifically why "we deserve better". You prodded me further, so I expressed more.

This isn't a Bay appreciation thread, and we don't need to have seen his latest film to explain why we would be avoiding it and why he's a terrible director. It still falls under the theme of this thread: that being why Michael Bay is no good.

Considering the amount of money he's got for being, arguably, terrible at his job, I'd say he deserves all the negativity he gets and certainly nothing better. He has enough in his life for people to be allowed to criticise him, his past work, and express doubt and dislike for any future/current project.

Bagheera wrote:now you all seeing fit to comment on a project even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

I (we?) know very well what I'm (we're?) talking about, even if I (we?) haven't seen it in its entirety. All having not seen the entire film prevents me (us?) from doing is speaking about specific moments or scenes - not an overview of the work and how it is much of the same.

@Sorrow

(Though Call of Duty continues to get great reviews from many "professional" places, despite the dire reviews from "amateurs". I somewhat suspect money is involved.

Personally, I dislike the COD comparison. True, COD and Bayformers have quite a bit in common. People don't play Cod for a complex story or character development (although quite a few do like Soap McTavish.) they play it to see and play in the ruins of Las Vegas destroyed by a South American Dictatorship. By that same token, people don't go see Bayformers for character development. They go see it to see A giant Robot riding a dinosaur. in a nonsense plot.

Here is where the difference lies. In videogames, visuals and gameplay come first, and the story is an afterthought. That is not to say stories in games can't be just as good/superior to anything that comes out of Hollywood (games like Last of Us, and Uncharted, have proved that in spades), just that in Games gameplay and aesthetics comes first and story can afford to be an afterthought.

But in film, visuals and story are almost as equal in terms of importance. With story and plot being just a little more important. Bayformers can have beautiful effects, but without a good story it comes off as Hollow, and a waste of both story and visuals.

Lots of Chaplin's Silent Films still hold up despite the aged effects, why? Because they're good stories with character and development, and commentary that still address issues that matter to us even today.
[/quote]

Ray wrote:Personally, I dislike the COD comparison. True, COD and Bayformers have quite a bit in common. People don't play Cod for a complex story or character development (although quite a few do like Soap McTavish.)

I suppose this is going to get a little off topic.

The comparison wasn't made to say that good games have to adhere to the same things that make a good film, or that Transformers and Call of Duty are alike in content. It was about how they appeal to and are aimed at a certain type of person; for Call of Duty it would be people who have a surface interest in games and a short attention span. It's instant gratification; there are no complexities or attempts to "lose" anyone who may not be mentally up to it; there is never a "low" point, as it is trying to constantly shove "coolness" or "excitement" down your throat, and as such it never reaches a high point either; the multiplayer has now been shaped so there is constant action from start to finish, and the masses just run around constantly dying or fighting, not caring about their stats or their ratios, but revelling in the non-stop motion. That is why it is comparable to action films as bad as The Expendables or Transformers - you pay money and you get simple, mindless "entertainment".

I never said a game needed a complex story or emotional scenes to be good, only that Call of Duty appeals to the masses in its simple stupidity. Street Fighter III by all accounts is a masterpiece. It's "just" two characters on a screen. But with its huge learning curve, extremely sophisticated mind-games, intuition and knowledge required of the player in regard to potential eventualities; trying to force your opponent to make mistakes whilst avoiding doing what it is they're trying to bait you into doing; understanding risk/reward, and knowledge of the character you use and the characters you would be up against - the game gives you no instant satisfaction for just showing up, it offers a reward for your participation and effort.

This difference of satisfaction extends to all forms of art. There is only so much you can take from people cashing in on the uninspired same old, same old. Yet it continues to sell - and I'm not surprised.

Honest Trailer For T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5vEfa7UvI

Woah Back Up.

This is a movie that stops the entire movie, full stop to shoehorn in a completely unecessary scene about why it’s legal for the adult male and underage female character to sleep together. Michael Bay actually put that in a movie a Big budget Hollwood Blockbuster, that literally BILLIONS of people the globe over would see, and got away with it?

You people who saw this kind've failed to mention that.

EDIT: The scene also gets the Texas law incorrect. It IS illegal for an adult to date a seventeen year old.

Ray wrote:You people who saw this kind've failed to mention that.

Well gee, Ray, no we didn't. ElMariachi specifically mentioned being creeped out about it here, and I agreed with him here. So in addition to flapping your gums without bothering to watch the film you also apparently aren't reading anything we have to say about the matter.

Do you honestly think you're going to convince anyone at this point?

It's probably best not to take the bait.

Micheal Bay’s all brilliant when it comes to making movies about legally protected underage sex.

Clearly he is a good filmmaker because of such.

Pacific Rim sucks, what with their globalized cast handled well and strong female characters. Del Toro’s an idiot who should have taken notes from My Bae’s Tranny 4’s “character” “development” and “dynamic” “cinematography” and “editing” “techniques” along with the “integration” of “special” “effects” that “showcase” “intensely” “choreographed” “fight” “scenes” in a film that was “clearly” made for its domestic audiences.

Take the covers off your eyes, people. Bay clearly doesn’t care about Transformers. Never has not even before directing the first one, and never will.

If you liked Tranny 4, that’s fine. But it wasn’t because any of Bay’s “brilliance,” in as much as it was Bay’s unquestionable tired indifference towards the subject matter and Paramount wanting him to make another Tranny film despite the fact that Bay himself has wanted to switch to the dark comedy genre with Pain & Gain. (Paramount wouldn’t have financially backed that film without Tranny 4.)

Just to be clear here. Bay doesn’t care about his audience. He doesn’t care about Transformers. And with his latest non-Tranny career moves that weren’t his hands being tied behind his back my a major studio, Bay doesn’t even care about his action movies anymore. He wants to do more dark comedy. You may care about his current action projects, and that’s fine, but based on the behind the scenes and interviews with everyone involved, Bay he clearly doesn’t anymore.

(Then again, I might get some morbid sense of enjoyment watching a terrible filmmaker chained to the one genre he’s known for and yet can’t get away from despite his active dislike for everything about it. A modern day Sisyphus is just the kind of caged animal Hollywood needs and deserves.)

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Pacific Rim sucks, what with their globalized cast handled well and strong female characters. Del Toro’s an idiot who should have taken notes from My Bae’s Tranny 4’s “character” “development” and “dynamic” “cinematography” and “editing” “techniques” along with the “integration” of “special” “effects” that “showcase” “intensely” “choreographed” “fight” “scenes” in a film that was “clearly” made for its domestic audiences.

At least Bay included actual Chinese actors when he shot scenes taking place in mainland China. Y'know, something PR didn't do.

And actually, TF4 had more strong female characters than PR did (it had a grand total of one). So there's that, too.

BTW, watching the film before going off on a rant is a good idea.

Just to be clear here. Bay doesn’t care about his audience.

No one gives a shit. We were entertained, which is why we paid the price of admission. That's all that matters to us.

So guys is this the worst Transformers movie?

Yeah, I know they are all bad but still.

Bagheera wrote:At least Bay included actual Chinese actors when he shot scenes taking place in mainland China. Y'know, something PR didn't do.

Just to be clear, you’re saying that Charles Luu, Lance Luu, and Mark Luu, (Chinese family name 劉, the pilots of the Chinese Jeager) are not from the Chinese race?

That’s what you’re saying right?

Because, I don’t want to misunderstand you or anything.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Just to be clear, you’re saying that Charles Luu, Lance Luu, and Mark Luu, (Chinese family name 劉, the pilots of the Chinese Jeager) are not from the Chinese race?

I'm saying they had no significant role in the movie (playing basketball and getting killed don't count), while lots of different actors did in TF4.

Sorry, your efforts to derail won't work. Who was the most significant character we saw in Hong Kong in PR? A guy played by Ron Pearlman. Ron Pearlman is excellent, but he is not Chinese. Would you like to try again?

Bagheera wrote:I'm saying they had no significant role in the movie (playing basketball and getting killed don't count), while lots of different actors did in TF4.

It still unquestionably negates your earlier point that I quoted both then and now for your convenient reading enjoyment:

Bagheera wrote:At least Bay included actual Chinese actors when he shot scenes taking place in mainland China. Y'know, something PR didn't do.

Yes, they did shoot with actual Chinese actors. They even shot with actual Chinese actors when they were shooting all the way up in Canada, where white Canadian actors, possible of French descent, are theoretically more plentiful.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Yes, they did shoot with actual Chinese actors.

Not in mainland China, they didn't. Sorry, but your hail mary fails. When it came to Hong Kong they went with a white guy. TF4 didn't. No way around that.

Bagheera wrote:Not in mainland China, they didn't. Sorry, but your hail mary fails. When it came to Hong Kong they went with a white guy. TF4 didn't. No way around that.

What part of “Globalization” didn’t you understand again?

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:What part of “Globalization” didn’t you understand again?

Try again. TF4 used actual Chinese people. PR didn't. Tell me again about this "globalization" . . .

Bagheera wrote:Try again. TF4 used actual Chinese people. PR didn't. Tell me again about this "globalization" . . .

Oh, but I will.

Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas and other aspects of culture.

What Tranny 4 achieved simultaneously was both American and Chinese Nationalism.

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation.

The differences are important when it comes to the ideologies (and in Tranny 4’s case, marketing gimmicks) of both films.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Oh, but I will.

No, you won't. You'll spew bullshit that amounts to "We won't employ Chinese actors, but we'll act like our position is worth a damn regardless." and pretend you're doing something to deal with the situation. Meanwhile, TF4 actually did something to address the situation, and that bugs you so . . .

BTW, calling it "tranny 4" is intensely offensive on many different levels.

Bagheera wrote:BTW, calling it "tranny 4" is intensely offensive on many different levels.

“T4” is already associated with the Terminator 4. The “T#” abbreviations have been associated with the Terminator series since Terminator 2: Judgement Day. As soon as Baythoveen’s Fifth comes out, I’ll stop referring to it in an abbreviated short hand just so long as Terminator 5 doesn’t come out in the year 2015. Though I guess “T-form” or “T-sters” would be better abbreviations. (“T-sters” sounds the best. Yeah...)

And, given the context of the rest of the casting, you;re argument against PR fails immensely. They could have (and by all accounts would have otherwise) casted the entire film white. But then, context was never really your strong suit. But instead every Jeager Pilot (read movie hero) was casted appropriately to their respective races. Context is key, and by the looks of it, easily overlooked by most.