Transformers: We Deserve Better Than Michael Bay

[Bagheera]

So what? Your arguments are still shit, since you're talking about the movie without ever bothering to see it.

[Ray]

Waiting for the DVD so I don't have to support Bay Financially. Especially after he dicked out over the people who made him his millions of dollars

I don’t care; let them hate. They’re still going to see the movie.
-Michael Bay

I'm not, because even if only 1% says no to bad movies that they KNOW are going to be bad that's still 1% that proves there is still hope for intelligence in Cinema.

I believe Most people watch it anyway because they know its bad but they go to see it anyway because they either a)hold out hope that maybe they'll finally get a good transformers movie with a halfway decent plot and character development, b) Want to critique it and say how bad it is. Those people are the ones at fault. The ignorant people who go in there is a small chance they may learn from their mistakes and choose a better movie next time. But its the fault of the Stockholm syndromed audience who keep going to see the Transformers movies hoping maybe it'll be good this time.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
= = =

If Bay was a good filmmaker who made great films but had a bad attitude, I wouldn't necessarily mind. Lots of great filmmakers have been notorious for their attitudes. Kubrick is one example but there have been others.

But Bay isn't a great filmmaker, and he's a dick about it when people say he isn't. His movies may make billions. But money can't buy taste, and Bay has shown time and time again. Through his attitude towards the people he relies on for success, and through the low quality of his movies, what a tasteless, unrefined, bigoted and selfish individual he is. Lots of people may be ignorant enough to support an attitude like that, but I wont Until he changes for the better.

- - -

I just wanted to post a video talking about Transformers. . .

[Bagheera]

Sorry Ray, but you're still talking about a movie you haven't even bothered to watch. You opinion is null, and always will be.

Watch the fucking movie, then you get to have an opinion. Until then, STFU.

[Ray]

Reviews exist, so we the moviegoing public can learn whether or not a movie is worth their time in the theatre.

See you when it comes out on DVD (I won't buy it, but I will watch it).

[Chuckman]

How can you review something you haven't seen?

[Ray]

Never said I reviewed it, The OP isn't a review. It's a copy of a comment I saw on a Forum I frequent, about why he wasn't going to see the movie, after suffering through three Bay movies.

[Bagheera]

And it was worthless, because he didn't know what he was talking about. I'm glad I ignored him and chose to see it, because I was pleasantly surprised.

[Reichu]

I'll be over in this corner, continuing to happily ignore these movies...

[Sorrow]

A bloody awful director making bloody awful films based on an awful television series based on mediocre toys.

More than enough reason to avoid such a viewing. Even if this new one "doesn't suck as hard", by evidence of everything that has come before, it is reason enough to stay well away.

[Bagheera]

A bloody awful director making bloody awful films based on an awful television series based on mediocre toys.

More than enough reason to avoid such a viewing. Even if this new one "doesn't suck as hard", by evidence of everything that has come before, it is reason enough to stay well away.

The most recent one doesn't suck, period. It's a fine action flick, and worth checking out if you have any interest in the subject matter. If not, oh well.

Also, Bay is terrible at directing humans, but he's great at directing shots. All of the TF films have been worth watching from a technical standpoint. That's about the only thing that makes them worth watching (particularly in the case of the second and third), but it's something.

[Sorrow]

Apparently the world won't listen, Bagheera. Rotten Tomatoes has 18%, Metacritic has 32% and IMDb gives it 6.1/10 stars. A pretty abysmal action film by anyone's standards, no?

I don't usually have to look up reviews. I was curious as to what the "critics" thought of this film you were praising so; but I knew it had to be upsetting, given everything about it.

Good visuals or shots doesn't make a good film I'm afraid (evidently), and neither does being better than other horrible films. It just makes it the best of a vile bunch. I appreciate what you're saying ("you haven't seen it you disfigured disgrace!"). Well firstly, I'm not disfigured, and secondly, it is entirely reasonable to condemn work based on all that has come before. If you watched four episodes of League of Gentlemen and thought it completely unfunny, too strange and dark, and expressed as such as the reasons for why you'll never [s]sleep again[/s] watch anymore, it would be an understandable position - though you'd be so wrong.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Also, Bay is terrible at directing humans, but he's great at directing shots.

Well, he’s not great at directing shots. He’s just naively “dynamic,” and sometimes he accidentally makes something coherent from time to time as a result. Even a broken clock is right twice in a 24-hour period.

[Bagheera]

Well, he’s not great at directing shots. He’s just naively “dynamic,” and sometimes he accidentally makes something coherent from time to time as a result. Even a broken clock is right twice in a 24-hour period.

Nah, he's actually good at doing action shots and such. You can tell when you look at his immitators; Battleship's a good example. He's not a great cinematographer by any means, but for individual action shots/dramatic effect? Yup. And AoE has some of his best work, as I noted on the previous page.

Apparently the world won't listen, Bagheera.

What are you talking about? It's one of the highest grossing movies of all time, the world loved it. The critics didn't, but their opinion doesn't amount to jack.

Good visuals or shots doesn't make a good film I'm afraid (evidently), and neither does being better than other horrible films. It just makes it the best of a vile bunch. I appreciate what you're saying ("you haven't seen it you disfigured disgrace!"). Well firstly, I'm not disfigured, and secondly, it is entirely reasonable to condemn work based on all that has come before.

Condemnation without familiarity is empty and meaningless. Avoidance is reasonable, but acting like you have a basis to comment is not.

[Sorrow]

What are you talking about? It's one of the highest grossing movies of all time, the world loved it. The critics didn't, but their opinion doesn't amount to jack.

I sincerely hope you're just being argumentative here.

What people think of a piece of work is far more important than how much money it raised. David Bowie is constantly regarded as one of the most important pop stars, having influence a vast amount of others (I'll give you a list if you demand it), having challenged what is acceptable sexually, stylistically, and musically; most of his work has brilliant reviews from critics of the time and even in retrospect; and yet, he's nowhere to be seen on highest selling lists. People wanting a night out and paying for the least mentally engaging, most highly advertised film, does not mean the world loved it. By people's opinions--critics and viewers (you can read viewers opinions on most review sites and they factor in the final score on some)--you will know that the world more-or-less hated it. It is meaningless entertainment, instant gratification for the masses - nothing significant, and nothing to say the world loved it.

Bear in mind that how well something is viewed is not dependant on a person's financial situation. There is more to factor in whether a piece of work sells well; like what else is released at the time and how much money people can part with during that period - critique isn't dependant on sales.

By your standard, Transformers: Age of Extinction is a better film than Dr. Strangelove.

Condemnation without familiarity is empty and meaningless. Avoidance is reasonable, but acting like you have a basis to comment is not.

I'm familiar with the Transformers franchise and, somehow, Bay's films. I needn't see this to know what to expect and that it would be dreadful.

[Bagheera]

I sincerely hope you're just being argumentative here.

I'm not. You said the world disagrees, and it clearly doesn't. Popularity is no indication of quality, but you claimed the world disagreed with me and that doesn't seem to be the case. I didn't say it was a great film, Sorrow; I said it was a good action film. And it is. Critical reception has no bearing on such matters.

See, the problem with critics is that their opinion isn't useful unless you know what they like and what they're using as the basis of their criticism. Most critics tend to reject action films out of hand, so it doesn't matter one whit how good they are -- they're action films, and therefore bad. But if someone's a fan of action films such a rejection isn't terribly useful.

I'm familiar with the Transformers franchise and, somehow, Bay's films. I needn't see this to know what to expect and that it would be dreadful.

I'm just explaining why such an opinion means nothing to me. You may have reason to think it's poor, and your reasoning might be well-founded, but until you see it for yourself you have no way to know for sure -- something I discovered first hand with this very film.

[Defectron]

Nah, he's actually good at doing action shots and such. You can tell when you look at his immitators; Battleship's a good example. He's not a great cinematographer by any means, but for individual action shots/dramatic effect? Yup. And AoE has some of his best work, as I noted on the previous page.

I dunno, a lot of the time those shots seem annoyingly jumpy imo.

[Sorrow]

I'm not. You said the world disagrees, and it clearly doesn't. Popularity is no indication of quality, but you claimed the world disagreed with me and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Well, it does appear to be the case. Yes, many people sacrificed a bit of their pay-check for it; but do you think all those people, or even a quarter of them, would have liked it enough to buy an actual copy? Critics (professional or amateur) may not be the best indication of what a film is worth, but it's certainly more important than the earnings. It being a critical flop and you continually saying that it's good, prompted me to say "the world won't listen [to you]", that is, no one else can see it. Even those who have unfortunately seen it.

I didn't say it was a great film, Sorrow; I said it was a good action film. And it is. Critical reception has no bearing on such matters.

Most critics tend to reject action films out of hand, so it doesn't matter one whit how good they are -- they're action films, and therefore bad. But if someone's a fan of action films such a rejection isn't terribly useful.

But actions films are bad. Having said that, there are still those that are considered good, or even great: First Blood, Die Hard, Terminator 2, and of course Enter the Dragon etcetera. Even as far as action films go it hasn't managed to be "good". I dare say it's barely managed to even be considered "bad".

I'm just explaining why such an opinion means nothing to me. You may have reason to think it's poor, and your reasoning might be well-founded, but until you see it for yourself you have no way to know for sure -- something I discovered first hand with this very film.

If Bay had drastically changed, then I can see why one would give it a go - though with much doubt. With doubt, however, does come the chance for redemption, which can cause people to think it is better than it actually is, simply because it's a step up - so it's not all negative for Bay, but Bay is all negative.

I'm afraid he's a cliché, of his own terrible cliché. The man needs to reinvent himself if he wants people to give him another chance. Making another Transformers, and I believe soon to be a TMNT film, does not help him one iota. His pockets are lined, so I don't think he much cares, but the man is a joke. Perhaps more explosions could help?

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Technically Bay’s shots are complex. In context, they are confused. The cinematography doesn’t elevate one moment over the other because he shoots everything to look dynamic. It’s like mixing your audio for a song, and cranking all audio tracks to it’s highest possible decibel level. The melody and the harmony are no longer distinguishable, and the instrumentation is incoherent. You can’t tell chorus from the verse or the bridge, and you end up hoping for the song to end shortly.

Bay’s cinematography is the same way. Optimus Prime is visually no more important than the other transformers since they are all treated with the same amount of dynamism, so in every instance Optimus claims or acts like the leader of the Autobots becomes merely forgettable false information to the viewer. Not one action set piece is more deadly or exciting than any other action set piece in his films, so the film loses its action arc. There’s not a single moment in his films where “Shit gets real,” despite his characters saying it at a certain point in his movies, because shit is always really everywhere on the screen in his movies at all times.

He’s a man who thinks talking loudly is talking emphatically, and that’s simply not the case.

Now there might be some genius moments in Tranny 4, sure. But they probably didn’t come from Micheal Bay. Honestly, I’m not even that sure if Bay knew anything different was happening on screen than any of his other Tranny movies. It was just more of the same. More dynamism, more explosions, more spinning cameras, more piss-yellow film filters, more body sweat, and more sexualized feminine humanoid stand-ins prancing about among the simplified masculine humanoid stand-ins.

[Bagheera]

Well, it does appear to be the case.

No, it doesn't. People clearly think it's good enough to bother spending money to see it, and that's pretty much all that counts in this context.

It being a critical flop and you continually saying that it's good, prompted me to say "the world won't listen [to you]", that is, no one else can see it. Even those who have unfortunately seen it.

But they can see it. That's why they recommended it to their friends, and they to their friends, and so on and so forth. That's why it's been so successful. If people hated it and thought it was terrible it would have been a commercial flop as well as a critical one. But they didn't -- they thought it was worth seeing, and that trumps everything else.

But actions films are bad.

Critics often think so. Viewers, not so much.

Having said that, there are still those that are considered good, or even great: First Blood, Die Hard, Terminator 2, and of course Enter the Dragon etcetera.

It's funny that you mention Terminator 2. It was a critical and commercial success, and yet it was inferior in most respects to its predecessor. Terminator was about our fear of the machine, of cyberization, of nuclear war, and of the inevitability of our current course. Despite being an action movie it had an awful lot of social commentary packed into it, and it handled its science and its ideas well. T2 threw virtually all of that out, making the story about a boy and his robot. The rigor and themes that made the first one intellectually appealing were gone. It was nice to see Linda Hamilton kick ass, of course, but that was largely superficial. Critics loved it, but they loved it as an action movie; the thematic points that made the first one so great went right over their heads, and that made their reviews misleading if you went into it expecting more of the same.

Anyway, my point is that reviews are inherently subjective, and often miss the point of why people go to see movies, let alone what it is that makes a movie worthwhile. The deciding factor, the only one that matters, is "do people want to see it?" And, no matter what they said in a review, it's clear that in this case people very much did want to see it.

Bay’s cinematography is the same way. Optimus Prime is visually no more important than the other transformers since they are all treated with the same amount of dynamism, so in every instance Optimus claims or acts like the leader of the Autobots becomes merely forgettable false information to the viewer. Not one action set piece is more deadly or exciting than any other action set piece in his films, so the film loses its action arc. There’s not a single moment in his films where “Shit gets real,” despite his characters saying it at a certain point in his movies, because shit is always really everywhere on the screen in his movies at all times.

Have you seen AoE? I ask because I had these same complaints about the first three films, but felt they were drastically reduced in AoE. The TFs were distinctive and easily identified, the action was clear and easy to follow, setpieces were more distinct, etc. It was cleaned up a lot compared to its predecessors.

This is why actually seeing it before commenting is a good idea, btw. Things do change.

[Sorrow]

No, it doesn't. People clearly think it's good enough to bother spending money to see it, and that's pretty much all that counts in this context.

But they can see it. That's why they recommended it to their friends, and they to their friends, and so on and so forth. That's why it's been so successful.

It's not all that matters, at all.
People like to have nights out, now more than ever; of course, they will find any excuse to get together to do something these days, and going to a massive blockbuster would undoubtedly be the obvious option when deciding on a film - for the masses, that is. They'd probably go again with different friends if it meant another night out. It's insignificant to the content of the film.

If people hated it and thought it was terrible it would have been a commercial flop as well as a critical one. But they didn't -- they thought it was worth seeing, and that trumps everything else.

Anyway, my point is that reviews are inherently subjective, and often miss the point of why people go to see movies, let alone what it is that makes a movie worthwhile. The deciding factor, the only one that matters, is "do people want to see it?" And, no matter what they said in a review, it's clear that in this case people very much did want to see it.

No? They've already spent their money; even if they hated the film, they've still contributed to the gross earnings. That cannot be a measure of the content more than the opinions people gain from it. It would seem 80% or more of the people who saw it, and were inclined to comment, hated it. Only about 20% of serious film enthusiasts enjoyed it.

Most others who didn't comment probably went for the social event, or to pass time. They're not interested in film the same way a critic (amateur or professional) is. They've contributed to the sales is all they've done, it means nothing for the content of the film or how it should be compared against others.

You couldn't even claim it is a vocal minority either, because films like Lego Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy have been well received and have an equal amount of reviews, from the same places, many from the same critics.

Critics often think so. Viewers, not so much.

Transformers and its ilk are to the film industry that Call of Duty is to the game industry, and that Justin Bieber is to the music industry. They (mostly) sell appealing to a very dim sort of person; it's instant gratification, it requires no thought or intellectual involvement from the "customer", and continue to be for the sake of money, not merit. Is it any wonder people who have a true passion for these industries write so badly of these products?

(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.)

It's funny that you mention Terminator 2. It was a critical and commercial success, and yet it was inferior in most respects to its predecessor.

I picked Terminator 2 because it's an example of a much loved action film, which you claimed critics didn't like and always dismiss out of hand. Nothing to do with my own personal choices. Your opinion of Terminator being superior isn't one I'd disagree with, though I'm still not a fan myself.