DVD Review up at IGN

[devonnewberry]

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/825/825332p1.html


Quite positive. I'm even more excited now.

[wingzero]

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/825/825332p1.html


Quite positive. I'm even more excited now.

Do you think that that's a quite positive review ? The article author says:

"But many of the updates to the "Transformers universe," including the unnecessarily complicated way they look and change back and forth into vehicles, are clumsily executed, as if audiences really needed a logicial or technically accurate explanation for the robots. Thankfully, the state-of-the-art computer animation is completely convincing and fulfills the film's "scientific plausibility" quotient. Moreover, few if any prior films have as effectively integrated CGI and live-action characters as they do here."


I mean, really, what is he talking about ? He wanted a lame Power Rangers thing with no technical background ? Did this guy ever watched the original anime serie ? It was way less detailed than the movie BUT there were some technical explanations and complex transformartions carried out anyway.
Then yes, he praises the CGI but what was he expecting, no scientific plausibility ? Transformers delivers its Ghostbusters-like style and taste because it's highly detailed and realistic, and I expect Transformers 2 to be even more detailed and contain more realistic explanations of aliens technology. I hope Transformers 2 will be way darker even because Decepticons will have to want vengeance and so the overall mood must be darker. I hope Mr.Bay won't consider critics like the one in that article.

Then the article author goes on with this paragraph:

"That said, average viewers (much less critics) have to be smart enough to know a movie like this needs only to follow its own logic, not theirs. Transforming robots? Fine. Otherworldly, epic conflicts? No problem. But in a universe where cars change into gigantic robots (operative word: gigantic), shouldn't someone outside of the film's core cast see them? At least once? During one scene, Optimus and his crew hang out in Sam's backyard, while he looks inside for a sought-after tool needed by the Autobots. Even if his parents don't see them, don't the Witwickys have neighbors who might notice five anthropomorphic automobiles noisily rustling about in the next yard?"

Now, what is he talking about ? When the Decepticons attack downtown everyone notices them, when they attack in the desert there were civilians other than soldiers and there were plenty of non-main characters... really, what is he talking about ?

[Tobi]

I wouldn't stress over any comments about the actual movie, when it comes down to it, it's your personal opinion that matters, I really only read this reviews to get an idea of the quality of the actual disc release.

[devonnewberry]

Do you think that that's a quite positive review ? The article author says:

"But many of the updates to the "Transformers universe," including the unnecessarily complicated way they look and change back and forth into vehicles, are clumsily executed, as if audiences really needed a logicial or technically accurate explanation for the robots. Thankfully, the state-of-the-art computer animation is completely convincing and fulfills the film's "scientific plausibility" quotient. Moreover, few if any prior films have as effectively integrated CGI and live-action characters as they do here."


I mean, really, what is he talking about ? He wanted a lame Power Rangers thing with no technical background ? Did this guy ever watched the original anime serie ? It was way less detailed than the movie BUT there were some technical explanations and complex transformartions carried out anyway.
Then yes, he praises the CGI but what was he expecting, no scientific plausibility ? Transformers delivers its Ghostbusters-like style and taste because it's highly detailed and realistic, and I expect Transformers 2 to be even more detailed and contain more realistic explanations of aliens technology. I hope Transformers 2 will be way darker even because Decepticons will have to want vengeance and so the overall mood must be darker. I hope Mr.Bay won't consider critics like the one in that article.

Then the article author goes on with this paragraph:

"That said, average viewers (much less critics) have to be smart enough to know a movie like this needs only to follow its own logic, not theirs. Transforming robots? Fine. Otherworldly, epic conflicts? No problem. But in a universe where cars change into gigantic robots (operative word: gigantic), shouldn't someone outside of the film's core cast see them? At least once? During one scene, Optimus and his crew hang out in Sam's backyard, while he looks inside for a sought-after tool needed by the Autobots. Even if his parents don't see them, don't the Witwickys have neighbors who might notice five anthropomorphic automobiles noisily rustling about in the next yard?"

Now, what is he talking about ? When the Decepticons attack downtown everyone notices them, when they attack in the desert there were civilians other than soldiers and there were plenty of non-main characters... really, what is he talking about ?



He's talking about the Autobots hanging out in Sam's backyard and no one seems to take notice.

And yes, it is quite positive cause he has more good to say than bad. No film is perfect.

[wingzero]

He's talking about the Autobots hanging out in Sam's backyard and no one seems to take notice.

And yes, it is quite positive cause he has more good to say than bad. No film is perfect.

To me that reviewer complains a lot and even contradicts himself. On one side he complains about too much scientific explanations and details about the Transformers and the AllSpark and so on. Then he says that no one noticed the robots, there was a lack of interactivity with non-main characters... regarding the scene in the backyard... the little girl noticed one of the Autobots in the pool actually...
Also, the scene was funny but still pretty realistic because it just shows how much people don't notice things around them, it happens in real life when there are crimes being committed and no one notices.. how many people would notice an alien of any form ? I bet only a few nowadays.

[Galvatron]

Do you think that that's a quite positive review ? The article author says:

"But many of the updates to the "Transformers universe," including the unnecessarily complicated way they look and change back and forth into vehicles, are clumsily executed, as if audiences really needed a logicial or technically accurate explanation for the robots. Thankfully, the state-of-the-art computer animation is completely convincing and fulfills the film's "scientific plausibility" quotient. Moreover, few if any prior films have as effectively integrated CGI and live-action characters as they do here."


I mean, really, what is he talking about ? He wanted a lame Power Rangers thing with no technical background ? Did this guy ever watched the original anime serie ? It was way less detailed than the movie BUT there were some technical explanations and complex transformartions carried out anyway.
Then yes, he praises the CGI but what was he expecting, no scientific plausibility ? Transformers delivers its Ghostbusters-like style and taste because it's highly detailed and realistic, and I expect Transformers 2 to be even more detailed and contain more realistic explanations of aliens technology. I hope Transformers 2 will be way darker even because Decepticons will have to want vengeance and so the overall mood must be darker. I hope Mr.Bay won't consider critics like the one in that article.

Then the article author goes on with this paragraph:

"That said, average viewers (much less critics) have to be smart enough to know a movie like this needs only to follow its own logic, not theirs. Transforming robots? Fine. Otherworldly, epic conflicts? No problem. But in a universe where cars change into gigantic robots (operative word: gigantic), shouldn't someone outside of the film's core cast see them? At least once? During one scene, Optimus and his crew hang out in Sam's backyard, while he looks inside for a sought-after tool needed by the Autobots. Even if his parents don't see them, don't the Witwickys have neighbors who might notice five anthropomorphic automobiles noisily rustling about in the next yard?"

Now, what is he talking about ? When the Decepticons attack downtown everyone notices them, when they attack in the desert there were civilians other than soldiers and there were plenty of non-main characters... really, what is he talking about ?

"F**K CRITICS"

*I'd like to buy a "U", Spins wheel, I'd like a "C" !

Now we can all solve the puzzle! :D

I don't pay any attention to any critics and have not for a long time, the only reason to watch their shows is to learn a little more about the movie but with every movie having their own websites or plenty of other sources critics are pretty much obsolete but I make up my own mind whether I want to see it or not.

They are as bad as lawyers and should replace Megatron's spot at the bottom of the Laurentian abyss! :)

Was I too blunt ? Sorry, I'm on a coffee buzz!

[LadiesMan217]

Critics actually do serve a purpose. I mean, you can perhaps discuss who goes to see a movie just because Ebert & Roeper gives it thumbs way up, but when it comes to absolute junk they're pretty reliable. If there were no critics movies like Catwoman would probably make millions more at the box-office. I usually read reviews before I watch a movie, on rottentomatoes etc. If I really look forward to it bad reviews are only making me lower my expectations a bit which is mostly a good thing. Take Oliver Stone's Alexander for instance. Good trailer, looked it could be the best movie of the whole year, and then critics attacked it with very negative reviews. Of course one's expectations are lowered, but it was a good thing because the movie sucked balls when I saw it, and if I'd actually liked it and been pleasently surprised... fine.... no worries.

However, critics-wannabes that are going to change their opinions just because certain critics hate a film are idiots, and people who constantly say "Fuck the critics, what do they know, who cares" are obviously the ones who care a bit too much.

[Galvatron]

Critics actually do serve a purpose. I mean, you can perhaps discuss who goes to see a movie just because Ebert & Roeper gives it thumbs way up, but when it comes to absolute junk they're pretty reliable. If there were no critics movies like Catwoman would probably make millions more at the box-office. I usually read reviews before I watch a movie, on rottentomatoes etc. If I really look forward to it bad reviews are only making me lower my expectations a bit which is mostly a good thing. Take Oliver Stone's Alexander for instance. Good trailer, looked it could be the best movie of the whole year, and then critics attacked it with very negative reviews. Of course one's expectations are lowered, but it was a good thing because the movie sucked balls when I saw it, and if I'd actually liked it and been pleasently surprised... fine.... no worries.

However, critics-wannabes that are going to change their opinions just because certain critics hate a film are idiots, and people who constantly say "Fuck the critics, what do they know, who cares" are obviously the ones who care a bit too much.

That purpose being target practice ! LOL
I'm still on a coffee buzz!

ha ha. :p

[OmarB]

I find it easier not to read reviews of movies I have already seen and formed an opinion of. There's nothing the reviewer could tell me that would in any change or even slightly shift my opinion.

[TIMtationX]

I'm just glad the DVD picture got a perfect 10. Makes me feel a little better about the whole Blu-ray situation. Standard DVD will look damn good.

[devonnewberry]

I don't like critics either. We can ignore them or bitch about them but either way, they're still here.

I ignore them for the most part but like anybody I've been known to side with a few.