the fact that ROTF is nominated for all the razzles. is more than a hint it sucks
TigerMegatron
horrible story,full of useless annoying humans+robot cast.
the rest of the people prefer a great story. memorable characters. a
cast that isn't useless.
...also known as Thunder
t.k.
Travoltron
> I don't think you'll see many people defending ROTF here...
>
> t.k.
I think it's funny that Bay and Uwe Boll are feuding. The only
difference I see between the two is budget size.
And it's telling Bay's worst criticism of Boll is the superficial; ie:
"low rent offices, with 15 year old 3/4 machines, archaic computers"
Zobovor
wrote:
> I don't think you'll see many people defending ROTF here...
Aw. I know I can't be the movie's only fan.
Zob
William Rendfeld
You aren't - I've said time and again that the film isn't horrible,
just rushed and poorly-edited. I blame the writer's strike more than
anything for the 'rushed' part, but the poor editing has little
excuse.
Craig Little
TigerMegatron
(1) way too many smaller sillier bots getting more screen time than
the bigger bots.
(2) I didn't like how racthet & ironhide got benched so that the silly
tiny bots & the retarted twins could grab the spot light & get more
screen time.
(3) way too many kiddie jokes that just ruined the movie. like the
whacky sam parents,useless leo spanish guy
(4)the movie had a all intented age level.
(5)at the very least the first movie had a more adult grown up feel
dispite the lack of a decent story arc.
(6)the whole part about sam going into seizers every time he got his
allspark visions was just painful to watch & got more kiddie silly as
it kept getting re-done over & over.
(7) I didn't like the bathroom humor of leo with his pants down
begging for tiolet paper or the devestator balls.
(8)I hate those tiny whacky nut case appliance bots & what looked
liked fleas comming off ravage.
(9)i didn't like the decepticon doctor. he was tiny,whacky annoying &
just came off as a nut case.
(10) i don't like shia lea beouf,he can't act,he goes thru all the
emotions wrong. he comes off a a cry baby whinner. he reminds me of
pewee herman,ernest & gilligian try to play a john wayne type man's
role & failing misserably at it.
...also known as Thunder
> Aw. I know I can't be the movie's only fan.
>
Yes, you are. ;)
t.k.
...also known as Thunder
> I liked it...
No you didn't. ;)
t.k.
Gustavo Wombat
I really like the Movieverse. I just hate the movies, the comics, and
the characters. Not so fond of most of the toys, either.
There are bits here and there in the stories that are really good --
the Fall of the Fallen, a war with casualties and consequences, the
unknown nature of the Allspark, Alice -- but all of the fiction sort
of dances around the things that could be good, and don't really
address them.
Gustavo!
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> I really like the Movieverse. I just hate the movies, the comics, and
> the characters. Not so fond of most of the toys, either.
>
> There are bits here and there in the stories that are really good --
> the Fall of the Fallen, a war with casualties and consequences, the
> unknown nature of the Allspark, Alice -- but all of the fiction sort
> of dances around the things that could be good, and don't really
> address them.
So... you like the fluff?
I felt the fluff was sorta painted on. Allspark's a do-hicky, and then
the Primes are the primitive warrior-spirits telling Luke Sky-Witwicky
that he's worthy and... y'know, that's it. Paper-thin, if even that.
If you feel that there's more to it, then that just means you have a
greater vision for the Transformers Movieverse than Bay... which is
why you should totally direct the next one.
Just promise to leave out the fart jokes, yeah?
Onslaught Six
> I really like the Movieverse. I just hate the movies, the comics, and
> the characters. Not so fond of most of the toys, either.
>
> There are bits here and there in the stories that are really good --
> the Fall of the Fallen, a war with casualties and consequences, the
> unknown nature of the Allspark, Alice -- but all of the fiction sort
> of dances around the things that could be good, and don't really
> address them.
Hey, you give all the shit you want to all those other things, but you
leave Reign of Starscream out of this. It's the best Movie comic evar.
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> Hey, you give all the shit you want to all those other things, but you
> leave Reign of Starscream out of this. It's the best Movie comic evar.
It was creepy. I just had trouble with the art. Couldn't work out who
was what.
Gustavo Wombat
Agreed. Indistinct, crunchy artwork, and countless cameos of
characters who looked nothing like their toys made it very hard to
follow. I'd add to that the fact that there was no character
development. The main plot thread had some good ideas though -- just a
pity about everything surrounding those ideas.
It's like the "Megatron-discovers-the-Fallen" series ("Vengeance" or
something?) -- a small collection of interesting ideas, and then some
of the worst execution possible.
Gustavo!
Zobovor
wrote:
> > Aw. I know I can't be the movie's only fan.
>
> Yes, you are. ;)
I know you're joking, obviously, but I'm perplexed that a moive that
is evidently so universally reviled did so well from a financial
perspective. There were only three movies from 2009 that made more
money worldwide and there was only one movie that made more money in
the USA. If the movie truly is such a poor cinematic experience, then
how did it manage to gross over eight hundred million dollars? Why
would so many people pay to go see a bad movie?
Zob
Mako Crab
wrong and all you want is to veg out and watch some mindless
explosions. I know, because I happened to watch it on such a day and
it was just the thing I needed. :)
...also known as Thunder
> I know you're joking, obviously, but I'm perplexed that a moive that
> is evidently so universally reviled did so well from a financial
> perspective.
I think there is a divide between hardcore fans (many of whom hate it),
film critics (all hate it, period) and the common moviegoer/casual fan
(many of whom liked it and probably saw it multiple times). I fall into
the "hated it" category myself.
t.k.
William Rendfeld
Defiance.
And blame that more on the format than anything - a lot of IDW's stuff
suffers from series length. Some titles could have used an extra issue
or two (Revelations, the ROTF prequels) or could have dropped an issue
or two (All Hail Megatron) and been better for it.
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> I know you're joking, obviously, but I'm perplexed that a moive that
> is evidently so universally reviled did so well from a financial
> perspective. There were only three movies from 2009 that made more
> money worldwide and there was only one movie that made more money in
> the USA. If the movie truly is such a poor cinematic experience, then
> how did it manage to gross over eight hundred million dollars? Why
> would so many people pay to go see a bad movie?
Lot of action. Lots of explosions. The sort of mindless fun you enjoy
in an air-conditioned cinema with popcorn and soda, and maybe a chick
hanging off your arm. Go in, turn off brain, enjoy the epileptic kids
getting seizures. The plebes want bread and circuses, and the movie is
a spectacle if you watch it on the big screen.
My missus and I though, we mostly watch movies at home in bed on her
laptop (it has better speakers than mine). So, loud noises and
explosions don't have the same impact as in a cinema, so we prefer
something that either has a bit more meat (for her) or a few more
laughs (for me). The only good cinema in the Islamabad / Rawalpindi
area is a bit of a bitch to drive to. And they seem to be focussing on
Indian movies nowadays.
*just checked online*
They're showing "Avatar" and "New Moon" right now. Seriously ~EW~. Not
blowing my budget on that.
Onslaught Six
> I know you're joking, obviously, but I'm perplexed that a moive that
> is evidently so universally reviled did so well from a financial
> perspective. There were only three movies from 2009 that made more
> money worldwide and there was only one movie that made more money in
> the USA. If the movie truly is such a poor cinematic experience, then
> how did it manage to gross over eight hundred million dollars?
I don't hate ROTF. Actually, I just remembered I ended up seeing it
twice in the theater run. (Once with some friends at a theater, and
then at a drive-in with my family.) At its core, ROTF is not
inherently bad. I just think a lot of the things that went into making
it went very wrong. The script was rushed, to begin with, and then a
lot of the things that had to do with the core plot were ripped out
and done just plain wrong. I'm not too upset with how they handled the
Matrix (and I actually like the design it got--very Movie-style while
still looking like the Matrix), but the thing with the Primes--first
it's implied they're the Thirteen, and then there's suddenly only
seven of them. And then Hasbro backpedals and says that only seven of
the Thirteen are Primes. Yeeaah.
Plus, we asked for one thing: More robots. Well, we got it...only they
didn't realize we wanted more *unique* robots. I'm not thinking it's
cool that there's three Long Hauls running around, I'm 'pissed'
because now it means there's three guys who look exactly the same and
some of them don't have names.
> Why would so many people pay to go see a bad movie?
I pay money to see bad movies all the time. But that's because I like
bad movies for being bad.