Official RoTF discussion thread 3 /Reviews go here [ SPOILERS ]

[uraydo]

Well, it's been kind of crazy around here, so I've put off expressing my thoughts on the film. Anyways, here is what I think of Revenge of the Fallen.

What I’m about to say, I say as some one who enjoys and supports Transformers.



Revenge of the Fallen was a terrible movie, despite how much fun it is too watch. Don’t believe me? Well lets look at the facts


Plot
The plot is coherent and easy to follow. No one said complexity = greatness. However you cannot detach character form plot. It’s simply not possible, and that is where the Plot fails. The whole story is about Sam vs Megatron. In the first film Sam heroically defeated Megatron by shoving the Allspark into his chest. In this film Sam revives Optimus Prime to take care of his light work.

Now if we zoom out a bit, to the “big picture.” This story is about humans verses Deceptions… scratch that, Americans verses Decepticons. I know what you’re saying, “uraydo, what about the Autobots?” well, I got sad news. They don’t exist. Don’t believe me? Well look at the film. It’s Sam that shapes the plot. It’s the military that does 80% of the fighting (more than that if you just look at the climax of the movie). And never once does an Autobot make a choice. So let’s look at what they do do. The twins are comic relief. They do nothing but make us laugh… nothing. Bumblebee, he is what scriptwriters call a catalyst. his function is to push Sam towards his conflict, Megatron. Wheelie, and Jetfire are also Catalyst. They were worst than comic relief. They were scenery.

The very sad truth is there was absolutely no conflict for the Autobots. “But wait, I saw them fight, I did!” That is true, they did fight, but educated scriptwriter will tell you that fighting ≠ conflict. Conflict is when a character has to make a choice. Before you say, “ they chose to fight,” characters without dimension cannot make choice, because they are never conflicted. They can and will only act as there one-dimension dictates.

What’s sad is Transformers could learn a lot for a little movie called Small Soldiers. In this film two warring robot factions wreak havoc on a small town. This film succeeds where Transformers fails by having two (count them two) protagonist. But Archer (good leader) and the kid have goals, things stand in the way of those goal and they both are hit by conflict.

It’s really sad to think most of Transformers’ problems could be fix by just adding another protagonist.

Continuity

Nothing in this film mad since. Blackout came back for no reason, (and before any of you say, “that was Grinder” let me tell you something. Most people that saw this movie, didn’t read the comics or novels or even the bios on the back of the box. So to them it’s Mother-trucking Blackout back form the dead.) Scorpinok mad an awkward return, Bonecrusher came back from the dead, the Constructicons formed Devastator, got blown up, then came back to fight, and they completely ignored the set up from the first movie by saying, “Transformers have been here since the dawn of time.” Not only that, they brought back Megatron. Makes me wonder why they even went through the trouble of making TF 1.

I’m a fan that learns all he can about the story and there were still part in the film that left me wondering.


Humor

Sex jokes are funny… if you are in grade school. I collect toys, but am still not immature enough to laugh at two dogs sexing up the place. Devastator’s balls? Why? The point is, a good bit of the humor made me take my eyes of the screen and look around to see if anyone else thought it was unnecessary. I’m not for censorship, but if you are going to do something, let there be a point to it. Did I really need to see two dogs hump on screen? Did it really help the story?


Climax.

What can I say about the climax? Well, most of it was Americans vs Decepticons. Really had me wondering where the Autobots where. I like the Optimus fight at the end, but seriously, does no one in the movie care that Jetfire died to save Optimus? Sams death and reserection, was clichéd at best. At worst it was corny. And the Fallen. The guy this movie is supposed to be about. He was a bigger wuss than Optimus was in the first film. The guy commanded no respect and in fact, Megatron lost some of my respect just for following the guy. Weakest villain ever. Of all time.

That just about brings us to the climaxes falling action. The time given to the audience to gather there thoughts about what they just saw. The slow curtain if you will. This film had none. It ended when the fallen died. Everyone smiles, Prime says some BS to try and fix the train wreck of we just witnessed, and the credits roll. Bay himself claimed this movie was going to be darker, yet there is no time given at the end to feel the gravity of what the characters gained and lost.


Yet what I know

I know the challenges for this film are unlike any we have ever seen. Over half the cast isn’t real. Making it very hard to give them the screen time they need to establish character depth. But this is not a problem that can be fixed by throwing extra stuff in like boobs and sex jokes.

The critics

I know a lot of people hear don’t like to hear what the critics are saying, but like it or not, they are right. ROTF is a terrible movie. It fails in just about every way a story can fail. The only reason it is enjoying any success is because of the visual effects.

If I could say one thing to Bay that I knew he would hear, it would be this. Listen to the critics. These are people who have studied the art of story telling and know what it takes to tell a great story. Sure, their taste in films can be question able, but don’t say things without a reason and knowledge behind it. You may disagree, and you may be in the right, but if you just ignore them you will not learn from your mistakes as a storyteller.

I know you make films for fans and you make films for money, but the average person doesn’t know why he like or dislikes a movie, or at the very least, understands his reasons. Also, their taste will change with the seasons. This makes for terrible movies making unbelievable amounts of money. Many of your fans say, “his movies sale well, so that makes them a success.” However, many bad things sale well. Fast and Furious, Hannah Montana, Alvin and the Chipmunks

Something doesn’t have to be good to sale. Any salesman knows that. That’s why I got out of sales. That, and I was a bad salesman.

[wingzero]

Continuity

Nothing in this film mad since. Blackout came back for no reason, (and before any of you say, “that was Grinder” let me tell you something. Most people that saw this movie, didn’t read the comics or novels or even the bios on the back of the box. So to them it’s Mother-trucking Blackout back form the dead.)

Then what? That was not Blackout. Period. Do they have to explain and tell the name of every single metal lifeform appearing on screen, perhaps?

All other points you made don't matter then, you are not explaining what was wrong with the movie here but just bashing it like a troll (or a professional critic.. yep).

The movie theatrical cut is flawed yes but because the production had some serious problems and many interconnecting scenes described in the official movie novel were just not there. There still hope that most of those scenes or similar to those were actually filmed and the producers are spending the needed money to get them finalized for the DVD/Blu-Ray release so that a Director's Cut/Extended Cut will appear that might fix most of the characters development/interaction flaws that the theatrical cut really has.

Anyway no, the movie didn't suck. But it really needs the additional missing scenes to be re-integrated in it to fix all flaws that can be fixed at this stage.

[Bayhem]

If I could say one thing to Bay that I knew he would hear, it would be this. Listen to the critics.

I know you make films for fans and you make films for money, but the average person doesn’t know why he like or dislikes a movie, or at the very least, understands his reasons.

Something doesn’t have to be good to sale. Any salesman knows that. That’s why I got out of sales. That, and I was a bad salesman.

With all due respect, I don't know how a guy with your way of thinking has over 3000 posts on a website for a director you obviously don't understand or even like.


Michael Bay has been in the business for more than 20 years now and his success is not an accident or pure luck. He completely understands what the audience wants to see from his movies and he's absolutely right not to listen to the critics.

And you also have to remember that Bay was a huge and successful director way before the first Transformers. So put yourself in his position and think about it - who would you trust:


- the people who branded you as the Devil and always treat you like a guy who can't make "good movies".

- or the folks who pay every single time ( over and over again through the years ) to watch and enjoy your films, completely aware that it's a Michael Bay film.



You also said, "...the average person doesn’t know why he like or dislikes a movie, or at the very least, understands his reasons", so my question to you should be, "What makes you so special and why do you think you're better than the average person?"

And you kinda crossed the line with that, because I consider myself an average person and I know what I like or don't like and I understand my reasons completely.

By the way, does that mean that I have to label you as a troll or a hater who pretends to be a fan, just because of the way you act here?

Here's what you should do - don't ever underestimate the average people, because whether you like it or not you are an average person just like the guy on the street or the guy next door. And just because you think you know more about cinema, that doesn't make you better in any way.

I also know a lot about movies and the way people make movies, but I certainly don't act like I'm some kind of God or that I know everything.


In the end, you said "Something doesn’t have to be good to sale" and yes I agree, but again you have to remember that Bay was not born yesterday and he has other very successful movies before the Transformers franchise and that alone speaks for itself and I'll tell you way.

After "Armageddon" back in 1998, people who like movies knew exactly who Michael Bay was and they were very much aware that the critics don't like him especially after that particular movie.

And now, more than ten years later Bay is still one of the most successful directors on the planet and that means only one thing - people love his movies and they love his style, and obviously the films he makes are good enough to make a profit every single time.

If he was really a bad director or a guy who can't tell a good story or even make an entertaining movie, he would have been long gone and forgotten like many, many other directors who are now in the so-called "Director's Jail".

Obviously and thank God, that's not the case here, because believe it or not Michael Bay makes good and entertaining movies ( yes, including "Revenge of the Fallen" ).

Whether you agree with that or not, that's your business.

[uraydo]

Then what? That was not Blackout. Period. Do they have to explain and tell the name of every single metal lifeform appearing on screen, perhaps?

All other points you made don't matter then, you are not explaining what was wrong with the movie here but just bashing it like a troll (or a professional critic.. yep). If a character exactly like another character form a previous movie, and they don't explain why he looks the same, then he is the same character. Hell, in Mortal Kombat 2, a terrible movie, they explain the reason Sub Zero looks the same, but is not the original.


The movie theatrical cut is flawed yes but because the production had some serious problems and many interconnecting scenes described in the official movie novel were just not there. There still hope that most of those scenes or similar to those were actually filmed and the producers are spending the needed money to get them finalized for the DVD/Blu-Ray release so that a Director's Cut/Extended Cut will appear that might fix most of the characters development/interaction flaws that the theatrical cut really has.

Anyway no, the movie didn't suck. But it really needs the additional missing scenes to be re-integrated in it to fix all flaws that can be fixed at this stage.

Also, you bring up the book. Novels of movies come after the script is written. sometimes they are even started before the script is finished. The writer fixes problems he sees, and adds detail where need. Don't forget, that a book is a different kind of media and demands to be told differently. Just because the writer thought something needed to be explained doesn't mean the scriptwriters were like minded. In all likely hood, these scenes you say would fix everything, are probably to the soul credit of the book writer. So really you cannot use the book to defend the movie.


Nothing will fix the problems with this movie, because it's problems are deep rooted in flaws in the way the autobot characters are portrayed.

With all due respect, I don't know how a guy with your way of thinking has over 3000 posts on a website for a director you obviously don't understand or even like.


Michael Bay has been in the business for more than 20 years now and his success is not an accident or pure luck. He completely understands what the audience wants to see from his movies and he's absolutely right not to listen to the critics.

And you also have to remember that Bay was a huge and successful director way before the first Transformers. So put yourself in his position and think about it - who would you trust:


- the people who branded you as the Devil and always treat you like a guy who can't make "good movies".

- or the folks who pay every single time ( over and over again through the years ) to watch and enjoy your films, completely aware that it's a Michael Bay film.



You also said, "...the average person doesn’t know why he like or dislikes a movie, or at the very least, understands his reasons", so my question to you should be, "What makes you so special and why do you think you're better than the average person?"

And you kinda crossed the line with that, because I consider myself an average person and I know what I like or don't like and I understand my reasons completely.

By the way, does that mean that I have to label you as a troll or a hater who pretends to be a fan, just because of the way you act here?

Here's what you should do - don't ever underestimate the average people, because whether you like it or not you are an average person just like the guy on the street or the guy next door. And just because you think you know more about cinema, that doesn't make you better in any way.

I also know a lot about movies and the way people make movies, but I certainly don't act like I'm some kind of God or that I know everything.


In the end, you said "Something doesn’t have to be good to sale" and yes I agree, but again you have to remember that Bay was not born yesterday and he has other very successful movies before the Transformers franchise and that alone speaks for itself and I'll tell you way.

After "Armageddon" back in 1998, people who like movies knew exactly who Michael Bay was and they were very much aware that the critics don't like him especially after that particular movie.

And now, more than ten years later Bay is still one of the most successful directors on the planet and that means only one thing - people love his movies and they love his style, and obviously the films he makes are good enough to make a profit every single time.

If he was really a bad director or a guy who can't tell a good story or even make an entertaining movie, he would have been long gone and forgotten like many, many other directors who are now in the so-called "Director's Jail".

Obviously and thank God, that's not the case here, because believe it or not Michael Bay makes good and entertaining movies ( yes, including "Revenge of the Fallen" ).

Whether you agree with that or not, that's your business.

Did I ever say I hated Armageddon? No. I even enjoyed Bad Boys 1 and 2. The Island and Pearl Harbor I didn't like so much.

Also, I blame this movie's problems on the script writers. However, I do put some weight on Bay for hiring bad scriptwriters... twice.

However, I can not blame them too much because in my above posting, I stated that I understand the challenges of these films. But all the understanding in the world won't keep me from bring them up.

You asked me why I think I'm better than every one else... It's because I am... JK. No, I do not think I am better than everyone else. However I did just spend over 70,000 dollars at the Savannah College of Art and Design to study the art of storytelling. So, yes, I do think I know a little more than the average person... Mostly because I know how little I understood going into my scriptwriting class. Believe it or not, writing a good story is not easy.


And Yes, Bay is a very successful directer, and may even be said to be the best directer visually ever. However, just because a movie is visually stimulating does not mean that movie is a good story, well told. Bay does keep his audiance entertained, but in the case of ROTF, it is not with story, plot, or character. It is with visuals, boobies, and tollet humor. Critics know, a good movie these do not make. Yet, members on this board bash them for the soul reason that they like a movie they gave a bad review.

so tell, what made ROTF a good story? and don't reference the book.


P.S. A troll is not someone who disagrees with the majority. A troll is someone who spams, starts fights, and who seems to type whatever random thougth hits thier mind at the time. I do none of these, so there for I am not a troll. I'm sorry I could not say, I enjoyed the movie for the story... You can't imagine how sorry I am.

[wingzero]

Also, you bring up the book. Novels of movies come after the script is written. sometimes they are even started before the script is finished. The writer fixes problems he sees, and adds detail where need. Don't forget, that a book is a different kind of media and demands to be told differently. Just because the writer thought something needed to be explained doesn't mean the scriptwriters were like minded. In all likely hood, these scenes you say would fix everything, are probably to the soul credit of the book writer. So really you cannot use the book to defend the movie.


Nothing will fix the problems with this movie, because it's problems are deep rooted in flaws in the way the autobot characters are portrayed.

Now you really sound like a troll. Did you ever read the novel? I bet you didn't because otherwise you wouldn't go around writing what you wrote above, really.
Also the novel was released a few weeks before the movie hit theaters.. and you think that Alan Dean Foster the writer was free to write whatever he wanted without having to follow the script movie? Well, that is not the case. You should read the novel to understand what was going on with the movie script. It's obvious that the novel is based on a previous version of the script I'd say which did some things differently. Anyway many scenes do match but the movie theatrical cut lacks bits and pieces that the novel has as well as many interconnecting scenes described in the novel.

Do you have access to all the filmed footage and did you watch the finalized or possible to finalize/usable footage of Transformers2, perhaps? Because otherwise you don't know nor you could ever have a clue if any of the available scenes could fix the movie flaws.

Like the other poster said it's really amazing how a Michael Bay hater like you managed to survive so much on this forum without having been banned considering how much hatred based on nothing you are writing against the Transformers franchise. It's not a matter of personal taste here, you are accusing Bay to have made Transformers movies including the first one worse than GI Joe as per your word.. with no storytelling you say... and so on and on.. that is not only absolutely false but it's a pretty silly statement to make.

The ROTF story is good but the theatrical cut is missing those little interconnecting scenes that the novel has and that the first movie mostly featured (although even the first movie had some deleted scenes recently made public that you wonder why they deleted them because they were good if added).
Yes, the ROTF movie ending was too quick and they should have used the novel version of it but it still worked, the ending fight scenes needed more scenes with military vehicles attacking Decepticons actually.

[Bayhem]

You asked me why I think I'm better than every one else... It's because I am... JK. No, I do not think I am better than everyone else. However I did just spend over 70,000 dollars at the Savannah College of Art and Design to study the art of storytelling. So, yes, I do think I know a little more than the average person... Mostly because I know how little I understood going into my scriptwriting class. Believe it or not, writing a good story is not easy.


And Yes, Bay is a very successful directer, and may even be said to be the best directer visually ever. However, just because a movie is visually stimulating does not mean that movie is a good story, well told. Bay does keep his audiance entertained, but in the case of ROTF, it is not with story, plot, or character. It is with visuals, boobies, and tollet humor. Critics know, a good movie these do not make. Yet, members on this board bash them for the soul reason that they like a movie they gave a bad review.

so tell, what made ROTF a good story? and don't reference the book.


P.S. A troll is not someone who disagrees with the majority. A troll is someone who spams, starts fights, and who seems to type whatever random thougth hits thier mind at the time. I do none of these, so there for I am not a troll. I'm sorry I could not say, I enjoyed the movie for the story... You can't imagine how sorry I am.

I absolutely respect the fact that you spend 70,000 dollars for your education and I'm sure that you know more about storytelling than me.

But does that mean that I'm expendable and my opinion doesn't count?

Well, the answer is "NO" , if you ask me.


Anyway,

I'm not saying that a visually stimulating movie equals a good movie, not even close. In order to judge a movie, you have to be able to see the big picture - the story, the characters, the music, the locations, the cinematography, the editing, the production design, the costume design, in other words - the whole package.


Let's do it step by step...


The stories in Bay's films are not complicated, I admit that, but the way he's able to tell a story through his visuals is simply stunning.

And believe it or not Bay is actually a very economical filmmaker.

Obviously I'm not speaking in terms of dollars here but rather in terms of storytelling. By stringing together a few well-chosen, split-second shots ( Hummers pull up, boots step out, slow-mo tracking shot of the team walking ), Bay is able to set up a scene in such a way that the audience knows exactly where they are and what they see.

When people go to movies nowadays they expect fast pace and movement. And since Bay is able to tell a story using his visuals, the moving camera and his quick editing, that makes him the perfect director for a 2009 audience.

It's that simple.


Next stop, the characters.
I don't think we can deny the fact that there are very interesting and likeable characters in his films - from Stanley Goodspeed and Patrick Mason in "The Rock"... Dan Truman, Grace Stamper, Chick Chapple, Rockhound, William Sharp and Lev Andropov in "Armageddon"...Dorie Miller, President Franklin D Roosevelt, Jimmy Doolitte, Earl Sistern, Captain Thurman, Betty, Danny Walker, Red, Gooz and Admiral Yamamoto in "Pearl Harbor" to Sam Witwicky, Simmons, Ron and Judy Witwicky, Leo and of course the robots in the Transformers movies.


Now I'm not saying these are extremely complicated characters, all I'm saying is that the audience can identify with them.

That would explain why so many people have said to me that they had tears in their eyes during that scene between Sam and his dad at the end of "Revenge of the Fallen" ( probably my favorite moment ).



The music.
I don't think I have much to say here - I think we can all agree that the score by Jablonsky was simply amazing and very powerful.



The locations.
Just the fact that the crew went to Egypt to shoot on the actual pyramids speaks for itself.
If it was a different director like Sommers or Lucas for example, all of that would have been a complete CGI.

So despite the effects in his films, Bay still remains a director who likes to shoot live, on camera......and that's something that I as a fan really appreciate.



I can go on and on and on with these things, but I think it's enough for today.



Oh and just so you know, I don't think you're a troll.
It was just a hypothetical question.

[Trailbreaker]

Now you really sound like a troll. Did you ever read the novel? I bet you didn't because otherwise you wouldn't go around writing what you wrote above, really.
Also the novel was released a few weeks before the movie hit theaters.. and you think that Alan Dean Foster the writer was free to write whatever he wanted without having to follow the script movie? Well, that is not the case. You should read the novel to understand what was going on with the movie script. It's obvious that the novel is based on a previous version of the script I'd say which did some things differently. Anyway many scenes do match but the movie theatrical cut lacks bits and pieces that the novel has as well as many interconnecting scenes described in the novel.

Do you have access to all the filmed footage and did you watch the finalized or possible to finalize/usable footage of Transformers2, perhaps? Because otherwise you don't know nor you could ever have a clue if any of the available scenes could fix the movie flaws.

Like the other poster said it's really amazing how a Michael Bay hater like you managed to survive so much on this forum without having been banned considering how much hatred based on nothing you are writing against the Transformers franchise. It's not a matter of personal taste here, you are accusing Bay to have made Transformers movies including the first one worse than GI Joe as per your word.. with no storytelling you say... and so on and on.. that is not only absolutely false but it's a pretty silly statement to make.

The ROTF story is good but the theatrical cut is missing those little interconnecting scenes that the novel has and that the first movie mostly featured (although even the first movie had some deleted scenes recently made public that you wonder why they deleted them because they were good if added).
Yes, the ROTF movie ending was too quick and they should have used the novel version of it but it still worked, the ending fight scenes needed more scenes with military vehicles attacking Decepticons actually.

First of all, before you read my post, I want to ask you nicely to read the ENTIRETY OF IT. Because clearly you didn't do that with Uraydo's.

I just love how you instantly ASSUME that because Uraydo thought the movie was terrible and the story was an abomination that he's a troll and a Bay hater. Please, if he was either one of those, he wouldn't last 10 posts on here. You obviously ignored 75% of his post. Did you read what he had to say about being called a troll?

P.S. A troll is not someone who disagrees with the majority. A troll is someone who spams, starts fights, and who seems to type whatever random thougth hits thier mind at the time. I do none of these, so there for I am not a troll.

Troll does not equal "Someone who disagrees with my point of view, because mine is always right." If that's your definition of a troll then you obviously never been to IMDb's discussion forums.

"But Trailbreaker! He's criticizing a Michael Bay movie right on his own forum!" News flash, this is a discussion forum. Not a fan site. Yes, the majority on here are fans, but if this was ONLY a fan site then Uraydo wouldn't have lasted 10 posts on here.

"But Trailbreaker! Why should I listen to you? You were disappointed with ROTF as well!" Well, true that is, but I have news for you. I have over 5,000 posts on here. The majority of them was in excitement and support for Michael Bay and the upcoming Revenge of the Fallen. After the film? I was disappointed. It can happen and it will happen, someone is going to be disappointed even after two years of excitement. It just pains me that I am that person. But what pains me even more than that? That I instantly get sh*t thrown at me because I was disappointed. In fact, I believe, Wingzero, that you were the very first person to do so when I posted my first review.

"But Trailbreaker! Didn't you bump up your rating from a 2/5 to 3.5/5?" Yes I did, but that was only for the sake of making people happy on here. But after realizing that my opinion on ROTF has, in no shape or form, affected my friendship with some members on here, I decided that that wasn't necessary and I could say whatever I want about the film (respectfully anyways). Does that mean I bumped it back down to a 2/5? Nope, in fact, I abandoned my rating system altogether, and decided that the best way to rate a movie is to not rate it at all.

Now does that automatically make me a hater and a troll? Absolutely not. In fact, I'll have you know (and I've said this 20,000 times already), that I am looking forward to TF3 and hope to the best that it will be a great film.

So what point am I trying to make with this extremely long post? Uraydo is not a troll. If you think that's what a troll is then you have much to learn about the internet.

P.S. - if it makes you feel any better, I'm not seeing G.I. Joe, but that's only because of schedule conflicts.

[wingzero]

First of all, before you read my post, I want to ask you nicely to read the ENTIRETY OF IT. Because clearly you didn't do that with Uraydo's.

I just love how you instantly ASSUME that because Uraydo thought the movie was terrible and the story was an abomination that he's a troll and a Bay hater. Please, if he was either one of those, he wouldn't last 10 posts on here. You obviously ignored 75% of his post. Did you read what he had to say about being called a troll?

You are assuming things on me in a childish way here trying to start a flamewar and maybe hoping to have be banned from the forum or what?
I am saying this based on what you wrote below:

"But Trailbreaker! Why should I listen to you? You were disappointed with ROTF as well!" Well, true that is, but I have news for you. I have over 5,000 posts on here. The majority of them was in excitement and support for Michael Bay and the upcoming Revenge of the Fallen. After the film? I was disappointed. It can happen and it will happen, someone is going to be disappointed even after two years of excitement. It just pains me that I am that person. But what pains me even more than that? That I instantly get sh*t thrown at me because I was disappointed. In fact, I believe, Wingzero, that you were the very first person to do so when I posted my first review.

"But Trailbreaker! Didn't you bump up your rating from a 2/5 to 3.5/5?" Yes I did, but that was only for the sake of making people happy on here. But after realizing that my opinion on ROTF has, in no shape or form, affected my friendship with some members on here, I decided that that wasn't necessary and I could say whatever I want about the film (respectfully anyways). Does that mean I bumped it back down to a 2/5? Nope, in fact, I abandoned my rating system altogether, and decided that the best way to rate a movie is to not rate it at all.

Now there you really sound childish. You obviously have a personal problem with me just because I dared questioning your review of Transformers2 some weeks ago and you didn't like it. That is a very mature attitude, indeed.

There is a huge difference between being disappointed by some aspects of a movie and bashing it telling that it sucks. What you and Uraydo are doing here is bashing as much as you were bashing the movie some weeks ago with your review--and at that point your review could have affected many preventing them from watching the movie, ok the professional critics on bribes fever weren't able to achieve that either but that is the point.
Why bashing a movie telling that is the worst and so disappointing when it's just not true?
Transformers2 is not the worst movie of 2009, not at all.
Is it worse than the first movie? Yes and no. If only they had time to refine it properly then it would have been much better in every single aspect. Due to missing scenes that the novel features that would have made the movie perfect it can be said it's disappointing and worse than the first in its theatrical cut at least BUT telling that it's the worst thing Mr.Bay could have done to the franchise it's just wrong because it's not based on truth nor facts.
There are some very strong moments in Transformers2 but they are too quick and Bay should have used the Jablonsky score a lot more like he did on the first Transformers movie to focus people attention on the scenes. There are some obvious cuts to scenes that would have been longer, I hope those were filmed in full and will get extended.


You watching or not watching G.I. Joe doesn't matter and it's not my business. It's not affecting the future of the Transformers franchise either.

[Trailbreaker]

You are assuming things on me in a childish way here trying to start a flamewar and maybe hoping to have be banned from the forum or what?
I am saying this based on what you wrote below:




Now there you really sound childish. You obviously have a personal problem with me just because I dared questioning your review of Transformers2 some weeks ago and you didn't like it. That is a very mature attitude, indeed.

Yeah, as a matter in fact, I do have a problem with you. You and I can disagree on stuff, yes, but you like to go after others and tell them they're wrong simply because they don't agree with you. And the reason I brought that up was a reminder as that you've done it before. I tried to rebuttal back then here you are coming back to go after someone else simply because they didn't like it. I'm sorry, but I can't tolerate that, especially when you go after others. Tell me, have I ever called people out for loving ROTF? I sure ain't calling you out right now for loving the movie. I mean after all, that would be rather childish if you ask me.

There is a huge difference between being disappointed by some aspects of a movie and bashing it telling that it sucks. What you and Uraydo are doing here is bashing as much as you were bashing the movie some weeks ago with your review--and at that point your review could have affected many preventing them from watching the movie, ok the professional critics on bribes fever weren't able to achieve that either but that is the point.

There's a difference between bashing and criticizing. Bashing is slander, false accusations, bull shit, etc, anything that would diss Bay. Criticizing is pointing out the mistakes, telling where improvement is needed, what should have been here/what shouldn't, etc.

I was criticizing.

Why bashing a movie telling that is the worst and so disappointing when it's just not true?

What do you mean? It's not true that I am disappointed?

Transformers2 is not the worst movie of 2009, not at all.
Is it worse than the first movie? Yes and no. If only they had time to refine it properly then it would have been much better in every single aspect. Due to missing scenes that the novel features that would have made the movie perfect it can be said it's disappointing and worse than the first in its theatrical cut at least BUT telling that it's the worst thing Mr.Bay could have done to the franchise it's just wrong because it's not based on truth nor facts.
There are some very strong moments in Transformers2 but they are too quick and Bay should have used the Jablonsky score a lot more like he did on the first Transformers movie to focus people attention on the scenes. There are some obvious cuts to scenes that would have been longer, I hope those were filmed in full and will get extended.

Lemme tell you something. The live action movie franchise is the best thing that's ever happen to Transformers. And I agree with you on all of these points.

You watching or not watching G.I. Joe doesn't matter and it's not my business. It's not affecting the future of the Transformers franchise either.

No it won't. What will affect the future of Transformers is whether or not TF3 will be a MUCH better improvement over ROTF. And I hope it is, I try to be optimistic the best I can.

[The Last Autobot]

I see that I've entered the "Who can post the longest thread" section.

I'll just mingle somewhere else.

[Trailbreaker]

Damn. I've been so nasty and bitter lately. Wasting too much negative energy over a damn movie. I told Wing it that it would help to ignore reviews upon realization that I should simply ignore any responses to my own reviews myself. Don't be an Ebert, Trail.

I apologize if I was a major league asshole to anyone and causing a stir on here.

[warhorse]

Damn. I've been so nasty and bitter lately. Wasting too much negative energy over a damn movie. I told Wing it that it would help to ignore reviews upon realization that I should simply ignore any responses to my own reviews myself. Don't be an Ebert, Trail.

I apologize if I was a major league asshole to anyone and causing a stir on here.

Are you on your period? Or is someone you know on their period? Is everyone in this thread on their period? It's what it kind of reminds me of, the worst week of every month in the girl's college dorms.

[Trailbreaker]

Are you on your period? Or is someone you know on their period? Is everyone in this thread on their period? It's what it kind of reminds me of, the worst week of every month in the girl's college dorms.

:lol

Well, I'm not a girl, but I have other outside reasons for why I am so bitter. This summer has been sucky so far, it won't stop raining. There's nothing to do. Plus I have other personal reasons, but I'll stop right there. All of that combined and I have reached the breaking point.

But I wonder though, is there such thing as a man period? Gah! Okay I'll stop right there.

[wingzero]

btw, I don't love Transformers2 simply because I love the official novel version written by Alan Dean Foster and I can see the flaws in the theatrical cut even more. I didn't love the theatrical cut because there have been so many cuts, even the Bumblebee and Sam in the garage scene got shortened and after having watched the Showest Sneak Peak footage that Mr.Bay provided here on his website for a few hours months ago just didn't make any sense back in theater where that scene got shortened for no real reason, the Showest version was just perfect and would have helped movie character development a lot, viewers would have felt Sam and his relationship with both Bumblebee and Mikaela a lot more watching the full version of the scene.
I started posting immediately asking Mr.Bay to release a Director's Cut/Extended Cut of the movie re-integrating all available/usable and finalized or that could be finalized quickly/cheaply scenes for the Blu-Ray disc release and not just adding IMAX scenes.

Anyway I didn't hate the movie, it was disappointing in parts where the cuts and shortened scenes were just too obvious even if you didn't read the novel but the other parts were outstanding. Overall the movie seriously still needs a Director's Cut/Extended Cut. It should have been a 180minutes movie from the start, it feels long to many simply because there are interconnecting scenes missing everywhere and so it doesn't look complete and might feel rushed. The theatrical cut has that "work in progress" feeling attached to it that simply shows that the production ran out of time. There is still hope to see the Blu-Ray version as much extended as possible.. taking into account the fact that Mr.Bay declared in an interview some weeks ago that there were 6-7 minutes of available deleted scenes... but maybe he managed to or he is hard at work to complete more minutes of filmed scenes that could be re-integrated back in the movie... Even if producers would be spending $50million to get the CGI finalized on missing scenes for the disc release that would simply ensure a way higher profit thanks to no less than +%40 / +60% disc copies sold, probably a lot more than my estimates. An extended cut of the movie would sell a lot more than the theatrical cut, you can bet on it (and more minutes being added with more scenes like those in the novel would simply mean more money being earned by the production and studios)

[uraydo]

Now you really sound like a troll. Did you ever read the novel? I bet you didn't because otherwise you wouldn't go around writing what you wrote above, really.
Also the novel was released a few weeks before the movie hit theaters.. and you think that Alan Dean Foster the writer was free to write whatever he wanted without having to follow the script movie? Well, that is not the case. You should read the novel to understand what was going on with the movie script. It's obvious that the novel is based on a previous version of the script I'd say which did some things differently. Anyway many scenes do match but the movie theatrical cut lacks bits and pieces that the novel has as well as many interconnecting scenes described in the novel.

Do you have access to all the filmed footage and did you watch the finalized or possible to finalize/usable footage of Transformers2, perhaps? Because otherwise you don't know nor you could ever have a clue if any of the available scenes could fix the movie flaws.

Like the other poster said it's really amazing how a Michael Bay hater like you managed to survive so much on this forum without having been banned considering how much hatred based on nothing you are writing against the Transformers franchise. It's not a matter of personal taste here, you are accusing Bay to have made Transformers movies including the first one worse than GI Joe as per your word.. with no storytelling you say... and so on and on.. that is not only absolutely false but it's a pretty silly statement to make.

The ROTF story is good but the theatrical cut is missing those little interconnecting scenes that the novel has and that the first movie mostly featured (although even the first movie had some deleted scenes recently made public that you wonder why they deleted them because they were good if added).
Yes, the ROTF movie ending was too quick and they should have used the novel version of it but it still worked, the ending fight scenes needed more scenes with military vehicles attacking Decepticons actually.

I absolutely respect the fact that you spend 70,000 dollars for your education and I'm sure that you know more about storytelling than me.

But does that mean that I'm expendable and my opinion doesn't count?

Well, the answer is "NO" , if you ask me.


Anyway,

I'm not saying that a visually stimulating movie equals a good movie, not even close. In order to judge a movie, you have to be able to see the big picture - the story, the characters, the music, the locations, the cinematography, the editing, the production design, the costume design, in other words - the whole package.


Let's do it step by step...


The stories in Bay's films are not complicated, I admit that, but the way he's able to tell a story through his visuals is simply stunning.

And believe it or not Bay is actually a very economical filmmaker.

Obviously I'm not speaking in terms of dollars here but rather in terms of storytelling. By stringing together a few well-chosen, split-second shots ( Hummers pull up, boots step out, slow-mo tracking shot of the team walking ), Bay is able to set up a scene in such a way that the audience knows exactly where they are and what they see.

When people go to movies nowadays they expect fast pace and movement. And since Bay is able to tell a story using his visuals, the moving camera and his quick editing, that makes him the perfect director for a 2009 audience.

It's that simple.


Next stop, the characters.
I don't think we can deny the fact that there are very interesting and likeable characters in his films - from Stanley Goodspeed and Patrick Mason in "The Rock"... Dan Truman, Grace Stamper, Chick Chapple, Rockhound, William Sharp and Lev Andropov in "Armageddon"...Dorie Miller, President Franklin D Roosevelt, Jimmy Doolitte, Earl Sistern, Captain Thurman, Betty, Danny Walker, Red, Gooz and Admiral Yamamoto in "Pearl Harbor" to Sam Witwicky, Simmons, Ron and Judy Witwicky, Leo and of course the robots in the Transformers movies.


Now I'm not saying these are extremely complicated characters, all I'm saying is that the audience can identify with them.

That would explain why so many people have said to me that they had tears in their eyes during that scene between Sam and his dad at the end of "Revenge of the Fallen" ( probably my favorite moment ).



The music.
I don't think I have much to say here - I think we can all agree that the score by Jablonsky was simply amazing and very powerful.



The locations.
Just the fact that the crew went to Egypt to shoot on the actual pyramids speaks for itself.
If it was a different director like Sommers or Lucas for example, all of that would have been a complete CGI.

So despite the effects in his films, Bay still remains a director who likes to shoot live, on camera......and that's something that I as a fan really appreciate.



I can go on and on and on with these things, but I think it's enough for today.



Oh and just so you know, I don't think you're a troll.
It was just a hypothetical question.

btw, I don't love Transformers2 simply because I love the official novel version written by Alan Dean Foster and I can see the flaws in the theatrical cut even more. I didn't love the theatrical cut because there have been so many cuts, even the Bumblebee and Sam in the garage scene got shortened and after having watched the Showest Sneak Peak footage that Mr.Bay provided here on his website for a few hours months ago just didn't make any sense back in theater where that scene got shortened for no real reason, the Showest version was just perfect and would have helped movie character development a lot, viewers would have felt Sam and his relationship with both Bumblebee and Mikaela a lot more watching the full version of the scene.
I started posting immediately asking Mr.Bay to release a Director's Cut/Extended Cut of the movie re-integrating all available/usable and finalized or that could be finalized quickly/cheaply scenes for the Blu-Ray disc release and not just adding IMAX scenes.

Anyway I didn't hate the movie, it was disappointing in parts where the cuts and shortened scenes were just too obvious even if you didn't read the novel but the other parts were outstanding. Overall the movie seriously still needs a Director's Cut/Extended Cut. It should have been a 180minutes movie from the start, it feels long to many simply because there are interconnecting scenes missing everywhere and so it doesn't look complete and might feel rushed. The theatrical cut has that "work in progress" feeling attached to it that simply shows that the production ran out of time. There is still hope to see the Blu-Ray version as much extended as possible.. taking into account the fact that Mr.Bay declared in an interview some weeks ago that there were 6-7 minutes of available deleted scenes... but maybe he managed to or he is hard at work to complete more minutes of filmed scenes that could be re-integrated back in the movie... Even if producers would be spending $50million to get the CGI finalized on missing scenes for the disc release that would simply ensure a way higher profit thanks to no less than +%40 / +60% disc copies sold, probably a lot more than my estimates. An extended cut of the movie would sell a lot more than the theatrical cut, you can bet on it (and more minutes being added with more scenes like those in the novel would simply mean more money being earned by the production and studios)

No it wouldn't. Besides, Transformers 2 was such a high grossing movie, it's a given that that DVD sales will be high too. Why spend extra money, when you are already guaranteed a killing?

[uraydo]

Now you really sound like a troll. Did you ever read the novel? I bet you didn't because otherwise you wouldn't go around writing what you wrote above, really.
Also the novel was released a few weeks before the movie hit theaters.. and you think that Alan Dean Foster the writer was free to write whatever he wanted without having to follow the script movie? Well, that is not the case. You should read the novel to understand what was going on with the movie script. It's obvious that the novel is based on a previous version of the script I'd say which did some things differently. Anyway many scenes do match but the movie theatrical cut lacks bits and pieces that the novel has as well as many interconnecting scenes described in the novel.

Do you have access to all the filmed footage and did you watch the finalized or possible to finalize/usable footage of Transformers2, perhaps? Because otherwise you don't know nor you could ever have a clue if any of the available scenes could fix the movie flaws.

Like the other poster said it's really amazing how a Michael Bay hater like you managed to survive so much on this forum without having been banned considering how much hatred based on nothing you are writing against the Transformers franchise. It's not a matter of personal taste here, you are accusing Bay to have made Transformers movies including the first one worse than GI Joe as per your word.. with no storytelling you say... and so on and on.. that is not only absolutely false but it's a pretty silly statement to make.

The ROTF story is good but the theatrical cut is missing those little interconnecting scenes that the novel has and that the first movie mostly featured (although even the first movie had some deleted scenes recently made public that you wonder why they deleted them because they were good if added).
Yes, the ROTF movie ending was too quick and they should have used the novel version of it but it still worked, the ending fight scenes needed more scenes with military vehicles attacking Decepticons actually.

I did not, nor will I probably ever read the novel. No, I will judge ROTF
by what I see on the screen. It's like Eragon. It doesn't matter how great the book is, the movie sucked.

[CesarCardoso]

why is it that there is always someone that cant stand criticism?
People get a life! ITS A MOVIE!

[Andreas]

Ok, let's stop it before it derails completely. Nelson will start handing out warnings if this continues.

[wingzero]

No it wouldn't. Besides, Transformers 2 was such a high grossing movie, it's a given that that DVD sales will be high too. Why spend extra money, when you are already guaranteed a killing?

To get an higher profit, maybe? To please your customers and regain trust of those more or less disappointed ones that can see the flaws caused by shortened scenes and missing scenes? To please those that bought and read the official movie novel to ensure them spreading the word that the Extended Cut/Director's Cut is better than the theatrical cut and more people would buy the original discs?
With a few more bucks they would ensure a lot more copies sold which means higher profits than expected. Yes, they could do nothing and release just the theatrical cut with IMAX scenes in it and that's it. But that would surely just disappoint people more and the hype towards Transformers3 would be a lot lower for the next 3 years from now. The release of an extended cut adding all usable filmed scenes and spending the needed money to finalize them re-integrating in the movie for a longer overall runtime would be a very strong marketing tactic that could lower the disappointment factor on the movie and mantain the hype factor high until Transformers3 gets released. Also pleasing customers that will have to wait for 3 years to watch the next 3rd movie it's a good thing to do. If it wasn't for the shortened scenes and missing scenes that the theatrical cut unfortunately features, because it's pretty obvious that Mr.Bay and his team just ran out of time, then the movie would have broken the $1billion mark. Now the producers spending a few more million dollars might still have the chance to ensure that the disc release will sell double the number of expected copies to be sold.

[uraydo]

To get an higher profit, maybe? To please your customers and regain trust of those more or less disappointed ones that can see the flaws caused by shortened scenes and missing scenes? To please those that bought and read the official movie novel to ensure them spreading the word that the Extended Cut/Director's Cut is better than the theatrical cut and more people would buy the original discs?
With a few more bucks they would ensure a lot more copies sold which means higher profits than expected. Yes, they could do nothing and release just the theatrical cut with IMAX scenes in it and that's it. But that would surely just disappoint people more and the hype towards Transformers3 would be a lot lower for the next 3 years from now. The release of an extended cut adding all usable filmed scenes and spending the needed money to finalize them re-integrating in the movie for a longer overall runtime would be a very strong marketing tactic that could lower the disappointment factor on the movie and mantain the hype factor high until Transformers3 gets released. Also pleasing customers that will have to wait for 3 years to watch the next 3rd movie it's a good thing to do. If it wasn't for the shortened scenes and missing scenes that the theatrical cut unfortunately features, because it's pretty obvious that Mr.Bay and his team just ran out of time, then the movie would have broken the $1billion mark. Now the producers spending a few more million dollars might still have the chance to ensure that the disc release will sell double the number of expected copies to be sold.

Transformers 2 is the tenth highest domestic grossing film of all time, I don't think that will translate to "well, maybe if it was a better movie, more people would go and see it". I think you are giving the studios too much credit, in caring what we think about the story.

plus, I doubt anyone would be willing to spend money on more CGI.

[wingzero]

Transformers 2 is the tenth highest domestic grossing film of all time, I don't think that will translate to "well, maybe if it was a better movie, more people would go and see it". I think you are giving the studios too much credit, in caring what we think about the story.

plus, I doubt anyone would be willing to spend money on more CGI.

Ok, so why are you on this board if you don't trust the production team nor the studios nor Mr.Bay, uh? You keep repeating that they won't care about what customers/viewers/fans would think of the movie with its flaws in the theatrical cut but not only that, you keep on telling that they wouldn't even care to get an higher profit by spending more money where needed to deliver a better cut of the movie, so an improved product that would absolutely sell more.. and you claim that they would be just satisfied with the expected high number of discs sold for the theatrical cut and they wouldn't spend more money... which doesn't make any sense at all if they were only looking for money and not for customers satisfaction as well (which means higher profits anyway if customers are more satisfied and happy about what the production delivered).

So I wonder.. do you work for the competition? WarnerBros maybe? Or FOX ? I doubt Sony or Universal because I rarely saw their employees using viral marketing tactics on forums to bash the competition.

Really, your statements now look and sound pretty fishy to me, you are right you are not a troll but I think you are a competitors studio plant. Otherwise I see no reason why you would be on this forum writing what you wrote above and kept repeating against the production over and over. If you don't trust producers at all and you claim that they would just get the easy money without working more where it's needed to improve the product they are selling then there is no reason for a normal guy not in the business and against Mr.Bay and Paramount/Dreamworks to act like you do and stay here writing what you wrote.

[r-type]

Ok, so why are you on this board if you don't trust the production team nor the studios nor Mr.Bay, uh? You keep repeating that they won't care about what customers/viewers/fans would think of the movie with its flaws in the theatrical cut but not only that, you keep on telling that they wouldn't even care to get an higher profit by spending more money where needed to deliver a better cut of the movie, so an improved product that would absolutely sell more.. and you claim that they would be just satisfied with the expected high number of discs sold for the theatrical cut and they wouldn't spend more money... which doesn't make any sense at all if they were only looking for money and not for customers satisfaction as well (which means higher profits anyway if customers are more satisfied and happy about what the production delivered).

So I wonder.. do you work for the competition? WarnerBros maybe? Or FOX ? I doubt Sony or Universal because I rarely saw their employees using viral marketing tactics on forums to bash the competition.

Really, your statements now look and sound pretty fishy to me, you are right you are not a troll but I think you are a competitors studio plant. Otherwise I see no reason why you would be on this forum writing what you wrote above and kept repeating against the production over and over. If you don't trust producers at all and you claim that they would just get the easy money without working more where it's needed to improve the product they are selling then there is no reason for a normal guy not in the business to act like you do and stay here writing what you wrote.

Cool your jets, Starsky. What's with the baseless name calling? He responded to your post with a valid counterpoint.

He said studios. (you know, the business half of show business, check writers, bean counters, etc.) Not the filmmakers.

It's a bottom line game to them. It made $$$$, why spend more trying to wring a few more drops, when the $$$$ bucket is already filling itself? If the ROI is worth whatever financial risk involved, they'll do it plain and simple, via a double dip release or something. But they most certainly won't bother if it's akin to throwing pennies at a giant pile of quarters. Be realistic. And unless you're privy to that kind of inside info/projection, you won't know for certain either.

From an artistic standpoint, you also have to realize that Bay has final cut privilege (not presuming he's needed to exert it, btw), and if what his intentions for the film are already what was on screen, then that's your Director's cut right there, until he decides otherwise.

[The Last Autobot]

Cool your jets, Starsky. What's with the baseless name calling? He responded to your post with a valid counterpoint.

He said studios. (you know, the business half of show business, check writers, bean counters, etc.) Not the filmmakers.

It's a bottom line game to them. It made $$$$, why spend more trying to wring a few more drops, when the $$$$ bucket is already filling itself? If the ROI is worth whatever financial risk involved, they'll do it plain and simple, via a double dip release or something. But they most certainly won't bother if it's akin to throwing pennies at a giant pile of quarters. Be realistic. And unless you're privy to that kind of inside info/projection, you won't know for certain either.

From an artistic standpoint, you also have to realize that Bay has final cut privilege (not presuming he's needed to exert it, btw), and if what his intentions for the film are already what was on screen, then that's your Director's cut right there, until he decides otherwise.

Nice. Couldn't agree more.

[Dynasty]

OT, I don't know if this link has been posted, sorry if it has... but someone said TF is better than sex... (To me, o.0, but to each their own).

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...r_than_se.html

[uraydo]

Really, your statements now look and sound pretty fishy to me, you are right you are not a troll but I think you are a competitors studio plant.

You figured me out, I am a fish troll, that was planted here by apposing studios back in 2007, in a preemptive strike against any attempt to make a sequel to the then unreleased Transformers 1.


But seriously, if you really wish to call my honor into play, I joined this site back in 2007 as a Transformers fan excited about the movie. Even though I thought the story to the first Transformers was pretty weak, I stayed because I know Bay did a lot of things right. I may not think Bay has told the best stories in his films, but unlike the critics that pass it for garbage, I can appreciate Bay for his fast paced storytelling and fantastic visuals. Transformers 1 and 2 had major story flaws, but that weight falls on the writers. True Bay does take some of the credit for the bad plots, but I still don't think any one else is more qualified to direct these movies. If they had a better script from the start, I have no doubt I would be sing praises just like most everyone else. But it was a bad story with flat characters, so I won't.


But enough on that, back on topic.


P.S. the movie was fun to look at.