Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

/// And to those of you who loved it-- good for you. I liked the first part of the first movie but could not imagine having to live through the last 10 minutes of film one for two hours.

I've noticed the comments on RottenTomatoes (in response to critics) are only slightly more intelligent than your average YouTube thread. Light years ahead of b-tards or Honda tuner forums.

notmtwain: Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome, so was Up!, and Away We Go was pretty good. Apart from Up, I got blank stares from most people when I mentioned the other two.

Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

I need to know - did Armond White like Transformers 2?

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

oh my god that's awesome.

Transformers was awesome fun. An absolutely awful film, but still great fun.

NikolaiFarkoff: notmtwain: Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome, so was Up!, and Away We Go was pretty good. Apart from Up, I got blank stares from most people when I mentioned the other two.

Maybe because Jumpscare: The Movie wasn't actually very good.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Ebert's review was justifiably harsh...but I ROFLed at the review you linked.

Katie98_KT: oh my god that's awesome.

Yes, yes it was.
+1 for thread-linked article!

I saw Transformers 2 and left thinking I was getting senile because nothing made sense to me. It just seemed to be a bunch of random, unrelated stuff happening for no apparent reason. I feel better now.

The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

This is why Ebert is awesome.

Ku_No_Ichi: Katie98_KT: oh my god that's awesome.

Yes, yes it was.
+1 for thread-linked article!


Repressing a guffaw this hard can't be good for you. Nice find.

If it's like the first one, I won't be wasting my money on it.

If nothing else, judging by the two links in thread and Mr. Ebert's article, Transformers has inspired a new level of genius in movies critics everywhere.

Epically bad doesn't even begin to describe this movie, but these reviews are both profound and hilarious.

I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

Meh. I didn't to the movie for a good story; I went to see new robots, explosions and hot chicks. I wasn't disappointed.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

So much this!!

The only time you should see this movie is if you get to go for free.

i've been defending Transformers 2 for a while now, because i assumed the haters were just haters, though i actually didn't see the film until yesterday.

Let me say, the haters are actually correct. I'd agree with the assessment that this is the worst movie to have made the most money, in the history of film.

I loved the first one. But this new one is too crass, too long, and too much the same thing... Watching robots fight for 2.5 hours will get boring. I'm not saying beef up the plot,,, but they at least vary up what the robots are doing. the action sequences were devoid of creativty.

B-b-b-but Megan Fox is in it.

Bored Horde: Transformers was awesome fun. An absolutely awful film, but still great fun.

I thought the first Transformers was an excellent piece of CGI action, which I would assume the second is, just moreso.

And I really like Timothy Olyphant Josh Duhamel.

And Megan Fox.

For different reasons.

It they went back and edited out the twins from Tranformers 2 it would be vastly improved. I still like watching Optimus Prime kick butt.

Transformers 2 was decent. Too much humans/racist robots.

The forest battle scene was traumatic for me. If you saw it, you know why.

I really, really, really hated the end fight. The previous battles were all wide shots, no close ups. It is hard to tell where one robot ends and where one begins on close up shots. Again, the Forest Scene was excellent because it wasn't a big blob of metal. You saw movement in all the robots in the scene.

I haven't watched Ebert since Siskel was alive, but Roger was the one that was willing to talk up a movie that was just dazzle and action. If Ebert wasn't willing to give even a mild compliment to a summer blockbuster, you knew it sucked.

i really appreciate that roger ebert embedded onto his website a youtube clip from robot chicken that ends with an implied in-theater blowjob.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

ha!

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

The Slashfilmcast highlighted that review for its podcast on TF2, it was hilarious.

I just went back and watched all the original cartoons, including the movie where Unicron eats planets, and I can plainly see the cerebral disconnect between that and these movies. Obviously, the cartoon we loved as children was about fine film making and not about shiat that turn into other shiat then blew shiat up.

So this is like Blair Witch? If you didn't like it, you just didn't get it?

Ku_No_Ichi: Katie98_KT: oh my god that's awesome.

Yes, yes it was.
+1 for thread-linked article!

FTA:

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?
The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

I didn't realize this during the movie but it's true, the decepticons weren't doing anything until they started getting shot at.

I wonder how Ebert will rate RoboGeisha.

Fried shrimp!

Transformers: ROTF is so long, you'll need to wear adult diapers to it. But the movie's pure celebration of the primal urge, and unfiltered living, will make you rejoice in your adult diapers. You'll relieve yourself in your seat with a savage joy, your barbaric yawp blending in with the crowd's screams of excitement.



pure gold

notmtwain: Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

I thank my common sense. After seeing that first Transformers and straight hating on it the entire time, I vowed never to see any sequels. My hate for Bay grows by the second.

Roger Ebert sounds like a Transformer.

I am a huge Transformers fan, and I actually kind of enjoyed the first TF movie in spite of its many, many flaws.

Thanks to the reviews of Ebert and others, I'm not seeing the sequel.

The reviews are saying the same thing, and it's sad - lame comic relief, incoherent action, and an utterly inscrutable storyline.

Ebert is one of the few respectable critics who will give an action movie the time of day.

Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I went into Ass wanting to see an ass.
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

This movie has finally taken me to the point where I can honestly say that I will never ever again pay money to see a Michael Bay film.
I've given him so many chances to redeem himself and every single time he just disappoints me even more.

Clearly he won't be hurting without my handful of cash, but at least I can sleep better in knowning that I won't ever again encourage him to commit further atrocities on the cinema.

I still haven't forgiven Ebert for giving a negative review to the new Star Trek and a positive review to the piece of crap Knowing.

NikolaiFarkoff: That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome

You really had me going for a bit.

That movie was decent. I would not call it good, let alone 'really good'. Mediocre at best.

/I like not seeing the ending from 5 minutes in.
//The only thing that surprised me about the end was that she got drug off, not the boyfriend

Huskadoodle: So this is like Blair Witch? If you didn't like it, you just didn't get it? huff enough duct sealant before watching it.

FTFY

As a film critic, I can confirm this is true.

robsul82: coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

The Slashfilmcast highlighted that review for its podcast on TF2, it was hilarious.

Did you notice how *NONE* of the revierws, including the 1 hour long review by the /Filmcast, mentions any of the acting? No one even talks about LeBouf and Fox. It's ridiculous. I haven't seen the movie, but can the ostebsible main characters really be that unimportant?

Other blockbusters which did well and were considered good usually get great accolades for the acting. Think of Heath Ledger, Chris Pine, Zacahry Quinto, and Robert Downy Jr.

Saw Transformed II with my son (12) and his friend. They enjoyed Ms Fox, the sexy she Robot, and of course stuff getting blowed up. It was enjoyabel summer fare.

Great movie? Of course not.

Plot? Not aware there was in fact a plot

Continuity? Having working in Philadelphia I did not realize you could drive 1 minute and be in the mountains, then later in an abandonded town

It was a train wreck, was to much CGI.

timefishblue: Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I went into Ass wanting to see an ass.
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I agree. All these movie snobs demanding to know whose ass it was just don't get it.

Carth: I still haven't forgiven Ebert for giving a negative review to the new Star Trek and a positive review to the piece of crap Knowing.

While that was criminal by him, he did give ST 2.5 stars out of 4. So technically it was somewhat positive. He just decided to only write about the bad things.

I really liked the special effects they used to make Megan Fox's thumb transform into a toe, though I'm not really sure why they bothered. Was it a subtle commentary on the effect of Darwinian evolution on corporal form? Was the film asking us if we, ourselves, are really the ones that are More Than Meets The Eye?

To describe someone as a "Harvard student" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration.

This is true, but in direct opposition to the way it was used in the article.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

/didn't see it
/mostly because it would mean tracking down a baggie of mushrooms and finding an IMAX theater

I like what Ebert said in response to one of the comments to the column:

Ebert: My guess is, when someone says, "I loved those toys," what they mean is they loved the zone of imagination the toys helped them enter, and the qualities they invested in the toys. They didn't pour lighter fluid on their toys and melt them, or use one to pound on another. The movies don't love the robots.

Last emphasis mine.

Did anyone destroy their Transformers? They were kind of fragile to begin with and expensive, not disposable like little green army guys.

\girl who was a little too old to play with Transformers when they were popular
\\sure enjoyed the Micronauts though

I can trust Roger Ebert's opinions on film about 99% of the time.

My own opinion is Transformers 1 sucked balls, and Transformers 2 sucked big stinky donkey balls.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

This comment wins the thread. Best. Movie Review. Ever.

"Critics blithely refer to movies as 'painful' all the time, but this is the real deal."

"A bad film that seems like a nightmare because it is one."

"A joyless, humorless, bloated carcass of an event movie...Nothing kills the euphoric buzz of exceptionally articulated carefree mindlessness quite like a newly emboldened Michael Bay."

"You might make it out of the movie with your soul barely intact, but the actors in the film don't fare so well."

"If you ever wondered what a movie would look like geared toward the underdeveloped brain of a gestating zygote...then Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the insipid illustration you've been waiting for."

"It's a wad of chaos puked onto the big screen, an arbitrary collection of explosions and machismo posturing."

"Putrid, offensive and life-sucking. Early word is describing this woebegone fiasco as the next Batman and Robin. Having seen both, Joel Schumacher has every right to protest the comparison."

OFCS Rating: 6% Rotten (new window)

I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

DamnYankees: Carth: I still haven't forgiven Ebert for giving a negative review to the new Star Trek and a positive review to the piece of crap Knowing.

While that was criminal by him, he did give ST 2.5 stars out of 4. So technically it was somewhat positive. He just decided to only write about the bad things.

True. I tend to group things into positive or negative based on rottentomatoes. A 2.5 star could go either way he just decided to rate it as negative.

There is no way Knowing should have been a 4 star film .

This image has many implications on many levels. All of them dirty. I love it.

As a child, I was a complete Transformers fanatic. I enjoyed Transformers 2. Having said that, the move was almost completely awful. "almost" because the only thing you could enjoy was the action -- which was about 95% of the movie.

/plot made NO SENSE
//if there was a plot.

so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

That may be why you were unsatisfied.

Personally I kinda got funny feelings in my jeans with Megan Fox dominating a robot with a big chain around it's neck...

and I really had no issue following the plot, it seemed kinda simple to me. Was also very satisfied that they even mentioned energon, since they didn't even acknowledge it's existence in the first movie, made me WTF.

only award it should win though will be special effects, anything else would be an insult.

The Southern Dandy: I can trust Roger Ebert's opinions on film about 99% of the time.

My own opinion is Transformers 1 sucked balls, and Transformers 2 sucked big stinky donkey balls.

Which is ironic, because he said the movie Big Stinky Donkey Balls transformed him.

Best review I've read is actually a FAQ (new window)

Also, this article reminds me of the time James Cameron demanded Kenneth Turan be fired because he gave Titanic a bad review (new window).

The only thing which made me somewhat interested in seeing this movie was that apparently Shia's roommate in the film is played by an actor who was on The Wire. But that's not enough.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Lol.. Win.

DamnYankees: robsul82: coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

The Slashfilmcast highlighted that review for its podcast on TF2, it was hilarious.

Did you notice how *NONE* of the revierws, including the 1 hour long review by the /Filmcast, mentions any of the acting? No one even talks about LeBouf and Fox. It's ridiculous. I haven't seen the movie, but can the ostebsible main characters really be that unimportant?

Other blockbusters which did well and were considered good usually get great accolades for the acting. Think of Heath Ledger, Chris Pine, Zacahry Quinto, and Robert Downy Jr.

Yes. Yes, they can be. I don't make the "the only thing Shia LaBeouf can do is make a shocked face in front of a greenscreen" joke because it's not true, lol. And especially in a Michael Bay film, the leads are incredibly unimportant.

Ledger - a Chris Nolan film, someone who saw a comic book series about a billionaire fighting people dressed as a bat and thought, "I can do something with this."

Pine/Quinto - a J.J. Abrams film, someone who saw a crappy 60s TV show and thought, "I can do something with this."

Robert Downey Jr. - well...that was RDJ himself.

But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

I enjoyed Waterworld until after the Atoll burned down. Then it was lame.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

I like you.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

You're right, that is a great review.

Too bad the only work of Megan Fox's I'm ever going to watch is the inevitable sex tape.

Spoiling shiat real good ahead:

What I don't understand about Transformers 2 is why the Primes, some of the most powerful robots in existence, had to sacrifice themselves to form a tomb for a key so powerful the kid almost sneezed it away. Then those two retarded twin-bots manage to put a crack in the ultra-tomb making the sacrifice of the super-bots seems worthless.

And then just some editing order that I really hated was when the kid is dead and talking to uber-bots in his dreamworld heaven/hell scene and he's all getting defibbed in real life.

WHY the hell do they not have him snap back to reality after a defib shock??? It would have made so much more sense to all those sitting around him! And to the audience! Everyone gives up defibbing him and thinks he's dead but later he just magically comes back to life/reality when the girl says she loves him.

Shut the fark up Michael Bay, you cock.

Excen: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

/didn't see it
/mostly because it would mean tracking down a baggie of mushrooms and finding an IMAX theater

From the sounds of that linked review, it appears that the anime show "Bakugan Battle Brawlers" my kids are watching on YouTube actually has more continuity.
Which is saying a lot, IMO, as some the core issues of the anime make no sense.
Like most anime.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

That review more or less sums up what I think about the movie too.

It was "fun" in that they blew shiat up and had some slapstick, but it was stupid in that there is no way I'd ever watch that nonsense ever again.

Can you explain Megan Fox's appeal?

Yes. She looks like a porn star and has the same acting talent as one, yet for some reason she makes mainstream movies. This tonal disconnect is what's so appealing about her.

Win.

Excen: COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

I didn't see the movie but am glad it exists just so I could read this;

Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

robsul82: But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

They give Scarface 2 stars, so I'm not really interested in what a critic thinks.

Ku_No_Ichi: Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I stopped listening to critics because:

1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.
2. They are getting paid for an opinion, not everybody likes the same stuff..I don't care about your opinion, I'll make my own decisions on what to like and not like.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

You're right, that is a great review.

Too bad the only work of Megan Fox's I'm ever going to watch is the inevitable sex tapes.

FTFVivid

/As long as she ages like Chardonnay not Milk
//With acknowledgments to Walter. . .

DSF6969: This image has many implications on many levels. All of them dirty. I love it.

Cue the 'Buttsecks?' Owl.

I can forgive a bad plot in a movie, or plot holes, or whatever. But Transformers 2 was worse than that. It wasn't just the plot that was bad. The special effects were bad; the script was bad; the editing was bad; the attention to detail was bad; all in all, it was just a bad movie. I have never seen so much money spent on something that showed so little love of the craft.

The first one was mindless fun. The second one was cringe-worthy, in the most negative sense.

I thought decent people stopped paying to see Michael Bay movies after Pearl Harbor.

I saw the first Transformers expecting giant robots and explosions. I got so little of both, that I'll have nothing to do with any future snoozefests from Bay. The first one was one of the most dull and boring films I've ever seen, and it was too damn long.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

I agree. If Transformers 2 has two redeeming features, it's that it pushed so many reviewers over the edge into pure Lovecraftian insanity, plus you know the eventual Rifftrax for this film is going to be friggin' awesome!


"My opinion of my whole experience varies from time to time. In broad daylight, and at most seasons I am apt to think the greater part of it a mere dream; but sometimes in the autumn, about two in the morning when winds and animals howl dismally, there comes from inconceivable depths below a damnable suggestions of rhythmical throbbing..."

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

DamnYankees: I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

This. The Rock is a solid action film. The Transformers movies are incoherent drivel.

Bay needs adult supervision. He could be the next James Cameron if he had a more sober director to work all the crap he doesn't really care about (and to keep him the hell away from comedy).

It's a movie about robots fighting other robots, that's what they gave us. You don't hear Nascar fans complaining about cars going in circles do you. It is what it is.

NikolaiFarkoff: notmtwain: Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome, so was Up!, and Away We Go was pretty good. Apart from Up, I got blank stares from most people when I mentioned the other two.

Drag Me to Hell was very good story-telling & a lot of fun. But instead of Away We Go, husband & I saw Hangover instead (stupid, mindless fun).

I did see Transformers, though. Only went for the explosions & giant, battling robots, so I got what I expected. It just took an effort to ignore the glaring plot problems.

This review was by far the best, most in-depth, post-mortem of Transformers 2 that I've seen yet:

Warning: Massive Spoilers!

DamnYankees: robsul82: But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

Well, if anything, he's not even attempting to make a good film. The only time I think he gave that a shot was Pearl Harbor. I really do think he was trying to make his own Titanic there, and after that didn't come close to any awards shows, he just threw his hands up.

Dr.Knockboots: 1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.

Seven has an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. So what are you talking about?

Yeesh! That 2012 trailer is rough...

DamnYankees: Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I assumed the reviewer was taking a creative license there, and summing it up for us.

If it is an actual line from the movie, I will pay double price for one ticket and actually go see it,

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

That was seriously awesome.

Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Movie critic needs to shut the hell up. He gives his stupid thumbs up to any movie whose producer gives him a sack full of money. Anyone whose deciding factor on whether to see a movie or not based on this assclowns opinion doesn't need to be watching movies anyway when they could be hanging themselves.

T.rex: ... I'm not saying beef up the plot,,, but they at least vary up what the robots are doing. the action sequences were devoid of creativty.

You know, I haven't defended Transformers 2 for much, since I assumed most people would be expecting some type of awesomeness from their childhood transformed into a legend.

Those of you who put your faith in Michael Bay for this were poorly misled.

But the one thing I will not agree with is the above quote. HOW THE FARK can you possibly not have loved the optimus death scene? AWESOME robot action, was probably the best part I took away from the movie!

and for those of you who didn't like the twins, do you remember the original cartoon? Or the fact that it was a cartoon? Humor was not exactly educated.

I think you people have too lofty expectations for what this movie was supposed to be.

/but how about that Avatar trailer eh?

tdpatriots12: I thought decent people stopped paying to see Michael Bay movies after Pearl Harbor.

The saddest part of all this is there are people who think the Michael Bay Pearl Harbor movie is a documentary.

Dr_Gats: so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

That may be why you were unsatisfied.

Personally I kinda got funny feelings in my jeans with Megan Fox dominating a robot with a big chain around it's neck...

and I really had no issue following the plot, it seemed kinda simple to me. Was also very satisfied that they even mentioned energon, since they didn't even acknowledge it's existence in the first movie, made me WTF.

only award it should win though will be special effects, anything else would be an insult.

It will win quite a few Razzies, I should think.

I read all my movie critics from Mr Cranky.

YOU MUST GO TO THE ARTICLE AND CLICK ON THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL.

That is all.

brigid_fitch: This review

Oops, yogaFLAME already beat me to it. :)

DamnYankees: Ku_No_Ichi: Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

Yes, it is.

The FAQ doesn't even cover the massive continuity error of having a complete Devastator fighting one battle, while miles away, some of the individual robots who make up his body parts are fighting as themselves at another battle miles away.

lilbordr: Yeesh! That 2012 trailer is rough...

1) I hope The Cusack fully pays his gambling debts with the proceeds from that movie so that he never has to make a 2012 again.

2) It really seems like Roland Emmerich is saying "FARK MICHAEL BAY! WHO'S GOT THE DESTRUCTION? I GOT THE DESTRUCTION, BABY!" with every frame of that film.

notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

Anhydrous Dihydrogen Monoxide: The first one was mindless fun.

No, there was not. The first Transformers was so distant from fun that the light from fun will take billions of years to reach Transformers.

For what should have been a vaguely retarded action-fest, we got just vaguely retarded. We got 45 minutes of some inscrutable subplot involving the NSA and hackers that involved absolutely nothing exploding and only little tiny robots. We got 45 minutes of gag-inducing romantic subplots involving nothing exploding and only a robot disguised as a car. We got 45 minutes of pratfalls, and about 5 minutes of fighting, and honestly- it wasn't even very good fighting.

Seriously, when you finally get to the big epic robot battle, and for all your special effects mastery, you can't do more than make me yawn, you are a shiatty, shiatty director. Michael Bay couldn't make getting crack injected directly into your heart exciting.

Ku_No_Ichi: DamnYankees: Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I assumed the reviewer was taking a creative license there, and summing it up for us.

If it is an actual line from the movie, I will pay double price for one ticket and actually go see it,

yes, in reference to Devastator's swinging errr....wrecking balls.

literally.

Ku_No_Ichi: Excen: COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

I didn't see the movie but am glad it exists just so I could read this;

Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

I agree with the author, I must find a way to work "Teabagging The Army" into my daily conversation.

ObscureNameHere: Excen: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

/didn't see it
/mostly because it would mean tracking down a baggie of mushrooms and finding an IMAX theater

From the sounds of that linked review, it appears that the anime show "Bakugan Battle Brawlers" my kids are watching on YouTube actually has more continuity.
Which is saying a lot, IMO, as some the core issues of the anime make no sense.
Like most anime.

I believe Randall Graves had something poignant to say about the subject:

They are an unholy curse from the beast we call the desolate one. (click-pop)

/He is like a prophet, man. . .

Transformers 2 was one long blur of swirling colors and loud noises best summed up with "WTF?".

Anhydrous Dihydrogen Monoxide: I have never seen so much money spent on something that showed so little love of the craft.

You know, I desperately wanted to be a 3D animator when I was in highschool. I've dabbled in Blender and whatnot.

Let me tell you: the animators and artists who worked on the TF movies have passion for their work. There is real personal creativity in those designs.

That's what makes it so sad that the outcome is such a freaking mess. Those billions of dollars aren't just numbers - they're man-hours spent by talented artists to breathe life into creations that are ultimately being used for cheap testicle jokes.

He put billions of dollars of hard-working artists to work on material that could have been shat out by a middle-school kid. How many times do you think the guys working on the story just said "screw it" and decided to go for another 8-ball instead of trying to find a way for something to make sense? Now, how many times do you think the artists under them did?

That's what makes this really disgusting - all the guys working around him probably have dreams and talent to work for guys like Pixar, but are stuck with this crap instead.

TFA: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

This is actually rather toned down. It's kind of like cooking. There are strong personal preferences but people can still arrive at a consensus over quality. I like chicken and absolutely hate mushrooms. I'll take a $4 chicken sandwich over the best mushrooms prepared by an elite chef, any day. I'll also acknowledge that a dish of well-prepared mushrooms are objectively better than my cheap chicken sandwich. But even my liking for chicken can't get me to enjoy a chicken sandwich that's been burned to a crisp and then shat on. So don't try to sell me the idea that calling a turd-covered piece of charcoal disgusting is "a matter of opinion".

I loved Transformers as a kid. But I'm not a kid anymore. My tastes have moved beyond ridiculousness tied together by transforming robots. If someone wanted to make a good movie that featured transforming robots I'd be sure to see it. But nostalgia and robots alone aren't going to get 2 hours of my time. I wouldn't go see a Care Bears movie, I'm not going to see the Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, or any other such thing just because I liked those things as a kid.

I love Ebert, but he gushed over the first craptacular film, including the CGI robots, whereas he loathed the robots in the second one, calling them "junkyard puke" or something. There really wasn't any difference with them in the two films, no? So why did he change his mind so radically?

Dr.Knockboots: I stopped listening to critics because:

1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.
2. They are getting paid for an opinion, not everybody likes the same stuff..I don't care about your opinion, I'll make my own decisions on what to like and not like.

Roger Ebert is one of my favorite big critics because he is often able to seperate "a film made for him" and genre stuff that other people would like. Too lazy to cite, but there are plenty of times I read "this isn't my bag, but it's pretty decent for a horror flick" or the like.

bravian: Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

And American Idol is the greatest TV show in the history of the world, and Danielle Steel is the best author ever, and the National Enquirer is the world's most respected news source.

bravian: notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

For opening weeks it is just a few spots below Spiderman 3. Are you going to talk about how great that movie was since it made so much money?

Zentai: Transformers should be renamed Transmorons.




/Gold.

more megan fox:

Dr_Gats: T.rex: ... I'm not saying beef up the plot,,, but they at least vary up what the robots are doing. the action sequences were devoid of creativty.

You know, I haven't defended Transformers 2 for much, since I assumed most people would be expecting some type of awesomeness from their childhood transformed into a legend.

Those of you who put your faith in Michael Bay for this were poorly misled.

But the one thing I will not agree with is the above quote. HOW THE FARK can you possibly not have loved the optimus death scene? AWESOME robot action, was probably the best part I took away from the movie!

and for those of you who didn't like the twins, do you remember the original cartoon? Or the fact that it was a cartoon? Humor was not exactly educated.

I think you people have too lofty expectations for what this movie was supposed to be.

/but how about that Avatar trailer eh?

Avatar will suck. Badly.

Bek: So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

This is why Ebert is awesome.

And this is why I miss the two of them together. They were straight shooters and tremendously smart, watchable, entertaining and insightful.

And when it comes to the mystifying four-star review for Knowing, I think Ebert was just enthralled with the ideas of that film. So enthralled that he didn't notice they weren't used intelligently at all. Either that or they're treating cancer with crack now.

Katie98_KT: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

oh my god that's awesome.

I agree. Hell, it makes me want to watch the movie even more now!

Can Michael Bay be considered the modern Ed Wood?

bravian: notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

Nickelback is a platinum selling artist.

Just saying.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

I'm getting funny looks at work for lol'ing at my desk. Curse you.

robsul82: And when it comes to the mystifying four-star review for Knowing, I think Ebert was just enthralled with the ideas of that film. So enthralled that he didn't notice they weren't used intelligently at all. Either that or they're treating cancer with crack now.

I never saw that movie. What was the idea? I know it involved aliens of some kind.

Huskadoodle: So this is like Blair Witch? If you didn't like it, you just didn't get it?

No, Transformers is almost irredeemably bad if you're looking for anything but explosions and massive CGI.

Blair Witch--some didn't find it the least bit scary and felt cheated that they never showed the witch. Those are the ones I look at and say they just didn't "get it".

ObscureNameHere: Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

Sorry if I'm capable of noticing when someone writes an outright lie when he's trying to make a movie look bad.

Ooh, or how about let's explain the entire decepticon plan ourselves in 2 sentences and THEN claim the movie never explained it? Even though you just did, based on watching the movie.

Yeah.

The real thing is, the actual problems he noticed were made less noticeable in his blog by the crap he made up. when you've read 10 misinterpretations/lies/retarded statements the 2 or 3 true ones just kind of fade away...

/liked the movie
//it was FUN
///blog article was stupid.

bravian: Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

Michael Bay's alt

Excen: ObscureNameHere: Excen: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

/didn't see it
/mostly because it would mean tracking down a baggie of mushrooms and finding an IMAX theater

From the sounds of that linked review, it appears that the anime show "Bakugan Battle Brawlers" my kids are watching on YouTube actually has more continuity.
Which is saying a lot, IMO, as some the core issues of the anime make no sense.
Like most anime.

I believe Randall Graves had something poignant to say about the subject:

They are an unholy curse from the beast we call the desolate one. (click-pop)

/He is like a prophet, man. . .

Can you tell me the gist? I can YouTube from work and I am curious to know now what the link is talking about.

belhade: Can Michael Bay be considered the modern Ed Wood?

To quote my friend on Ed Wood:

"His films were unmistakably his own."

Michael Bay, to me, is a post-lobotomy Tony Scott with a CGI obsession. I don't think a modern Ed Wood could exist, at least not with popular (as in more than a couple hundred screens) films. But I could be drawing a blank.

dragonchild: It's kind of like cooking.

My analogy is that movies are like meals. Some movies are carefully seared filet mingion served with sauteed truffles and a nutty red wine. They should be savored slowly. Other movies are hamburgers. Sometimes you want the filet, other times, you want a hamburger.

But just because you're in the mood for a hamburger doesn't mean you're going to choke down the predigested turd from McDonalds and call it delicious. You can't just slap garbage between a bun and say, "You can't criticize my hamburger, because it's just supposed to be a hamburger, not a steak."

It's still a bad hamburger.

bravian: Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

Well, yes. Nowadays a movie's profit is only indicative of how many retards it can draw. That doesn't mean it's good or bad; it's just an indicator of how many people bought the hype. In terms of quality, it's a non sequitur.

t3knomanser: Seriously, when you finally get to the big epic robot battle, and for all your special effects mastery, you can't do more than make me yawn, you are a shiatty, shiatty director.

Do yourself a favor and stick to Shoji Kawamori from now on. He can get just as sappy but at least the mecha fights are epic.

can somebody else confirm for me, I could have sworn that the motorcycle transformer was a singular entity, and a decepticon when in the cartoon, although still "female". Am I mistaken?

Roger sounds fat. And he talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded.

t3knomanser: My analogy is that movies are like meals. Some movies are carefully seared filet mingion served with sauteed truffles and a nutty red wine. They should be savored slowly. Other movies are hamburgers. Sometimes you want the filet, other times, you want a hamburger. But just because you're in the mood for a hamburger doesn't mean you're going to choke down the predigested turd from McDonalds and call it delicious.

Sir, I do believe we are in perfect agreement.

Well written article. Good for him.

DamnYankees: robsul82: And when it comes to the mystifying four-star review for Knowing, I think Ebert was just enthralled with the ideas of that film. So enthralled that he didn't notice they weren't used intelligently at all. Either that or they're treating cancer with crack now.

I never saw that movie. What was the idea? I know it involved aliens of some kind.

The idea that the world is intricately plotted out, that predestination is real, that Earth isn't our original home but that we were taken here after the death of our previous planet. Fark, maybe even that we're watched over by malevolent-seeming aliens who are in fact benevolent and enjoy really obvious Adam and Eve metaphors.

notmtwain:
Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

It's a movie,directed by Michael Bay, that is based on a terrible 1980s cartoon about robots from outer space that transform into cars, planes, etc, and it took a negative review from Roger Ebert to convince you that it was going to be a huge turd? Really??

louiedog: bravian: notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Yes a movie that sucked so bad that it has only made $591,459,000 so far worldwide and TIED for first place against the opening weekend of another popular sequel.

Nickelback is a platinum selling artist.

Just saying.

And Creed sold 35 million albums.

/If it was Creed instead of Rick, we could eliminate all religion from music in our lifetimes (new window)

robsul82: The idea that the world is intricately plotted out, that predestination is real, that Earth isn't our original home but that we were taken here after the death of our previous planet. Fark, maybe even that we're watched over by malevolent-seeming aliens who are in fact benevolent and enjoy really obvious Adam and Eve metaphors.

That sounds...retarded. And I can't possibly believe that was well-executed with Captain BirdHair in the lead role.

duckpoopy: Roger sounds fat. And he talks like a queer and his shiat's all retarded.

Michael Bay's 2nd alt

Dr_Gats: so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

Er, WHAT "hot chick" scenes??

Megan Fox is "okay" is far as women who are put on film to be objects of beauty. Hell, I could go to most college bars on a Friday night and find 10 better-looking chicks.

Overall, The director presents her as if you're as into her as much as she is into herself, and if you're not, the effect is lost.

I think I do want to see this movie solely on the toplessrobot review. I must see how much of a train wreck it is. Movies this bad dont come around all that often, folks. See it and lol while you can

Dr.Knockboots: I stopped listening to critics because:

1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.
2. They are getting paid for an opinion, not everybody likes the same stuff..I don't care about your opinion, I'll make my own decisions on what to like and not like.

You tell 'em, Doc!
It's my money
Din't see TF
My lawn, get off it

yogaFLAME

Great find.

"They walked."

Priceless.

DamnYankees: robsul82: The idea that the world is intricately plotted out, that predestination is real, that Earth isn't our original home but that we were taken here after the death of our previous planet. Fark, maybe even that we're watched over by malevolent-seeming aliens who are in fact benevolent and enjoy really obvious Adam and Eve metaphors.

That sounds...retarded. And I can't possibly believe that was well-executed with Captain BirdHair in the lead role.

Exactly. And the worst part of all was Cage was pretty calm in the role. A few spots of overacting, but nothing in the vein of The Wicker Man at all.

That's how he gets you nowadays. You go thinking, "Well, if nothing else, maybe he'll get back to The Wicker Man levels of acting excess." And then he doesn't!

lukelightning: I wonder how Ebert will rate RoboGeisha.

Fried shrimp!

I saw the trailer at the Asian film festival last week, from the same guy that directed this: Machine Girl (new window). The Japanese do come out with some wild movies. I wonder how Ebert would have rated Tokyo Gore Police (new window) or Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl (new window)?

Kryptonic Silencer: If it's like the first one, I won't be wasting my money on it.

That's the funny bit: Ebert gave the first one *** (new window)

timefishblue:
I went into Ass wanting to see an ass.
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

Great films, with plots! Where you cared about whose ass it was, and why it was farting!

Movie critic needs to shut the hell up. He gives his stupid thumbs up to any movie whose producer gives him a sack full of money. Anyone whose deciding factor on whether to see a movie or not based on this assclowns opinion doesn't need to be watching movies anyway when they could be hanging themselves.

After reading your post, I am reasonably certain about two things:

1) you have absolutely no proof that Roger Ebert accepts payola in exchange for positive reviews;

2) you are 13 years old.

robsul82: Exactly. And the worst part of all was Cage was pretty calm in the role. A few spots of overacting, but nothing in the vein of The Wicker Man at all.

That's how he gets you nowadays. You go thinking, "Well, if nothing else, maybe he'll get back to The Wicker Man levels of acting excess." And then he doesn't!

From Wiki:

Having noticed that the last date on the paper is not accompanied by coordinates, further clues in Lucinda's home lead John and Diana to realize that the '33' listed as the death toll for the final disaster is actually 'EE' reversed, which Lucinda meant to represent 'Everyone Else'.


That's retarded. RE-TAR-DED.

DamnYankees: Seven has an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. So what are you talking about?

Years ago.. whatever year Seven came out in the theaters (1995?).. multiple critics in 2 big newspapers panned the movie.. giving it a D or C at best.. low stars.. whatever.
So I skipped it.
Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".
From then on, I ignored critics and idiot anonymous internet dummies and been better for it.

robsul82: Exactly. And the worst part of all was Cage was pretty calm in the role. A few spots of overacting, but nothing in the vein of The Wicker Man at all.

That's how he gets you nowadays. You go thinking, "Well, if nothing else, maybe he'll get back to The Wicker Man levels of acting excess." And then he doesn't!

I absolutely loved Cage in Adaptation.

The term WHARRGARBL needs to be stricken from human consciousness forever.

Sgt Otter: Yes, it is.

That's awesome.
Srsly.
I'll see the damned thing now.

Ku_No_Ichi: DamnYankees: Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I assumed the reviewer was taking a creative license there, and summing it up for us.

If it is an actual line from the movie, I will pay double price for one ticket and actually go see it,

I assure you, it is an actual line in the movie, uttered by John Turturro.

Lest we forget, Spielberg signed off on this trainwreck of a film. My guess is that he was off to the side counting his pile of cash a la J&SB Strike Back.

If you go to see Transformers 1 or 2 expecting anything other than a bunch of giant robots beating the crap out of one another and Megan Fox being ridiculously hot, you have paid to see the wrong movie.

iollow: Dr_Gats: so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

Er, WHAT "hot chick" scenes??

Megan Fox is "okay" is far as women who are put on film to be objects of beauty. Hell, I could go to most college bars on a Friday night and find 10 better-looking chicks.

Overall, The director presents her as if you're as into her as much as she is into herself, and if you're not, the effect is lost.

When I see Megan Fox I don't think, "Wow, that woman is stunning." I think, "Why would anyone go for the 'porn star' look?"

I'm still upset that no one threw a hissy-fit that they ran from Egypt to Jordan without passing thru another country

louiedog: I loved Transformers as a kid. But I'm not a kid anymore. My tastes have moved beyond ridiculousness tied together by transforming robots. If someone wanted to make a good movie that featured transforming robots I'd be sure to see it. But nostalgia and robots alone aren't going to get 2 hours of my time.

There's a huge market for nostalgia flicks that have this very obvious problem. People grow up and want to see the stories they grew up to come to life on the big screen, but the stories have to overcome the fact that the audience has grown up.

If we're talking about George Lucas, the result is an embarrassing (albeit highly profitable) disaster. On the other hand, "The Dark Knight" demonstrates that it's possible to transform a kid's favorite comic book into a flick that appeals to adults. It's just very, very tough to pull off.

That said, just because an Olympic-level dive is phenomenally hard to pull off doesn't mean a lazy cynic should be allowed to call a belly flop a meaningful effort.

El Freak: It's a movie,directed by Michael Bay, that is based on a terrible 1980s cartoon about robots from outer space that transform into cars, planes, etc, and it took a negative review from Roger Ebert to convince you that it was going to be a huge turd? Really??

I liked The Rock, a Bay movie. I liked the original cartoon show - if you watch the pilot eps and the '80s movie and avoid the main series, some of it still holds up. Ebert is willing to cut sci-fi/action movies slack if they're good enough.

I mean, if Cameron can make a good movie about time-travelling robots from the future that masquerade as humans and beat each other up, then Bay should be able to make a good movie about space-traveling robots that masquerade as vehicles and beat each other up.

But he doesn't. He doesn't even try. In every choice between "quality" and "shiny" he picks the shiny. Tits over talent. Cheap slapstick over thought. Shaky swirling metal over coherent action scenes.

louiedog: When I see Megan Fox I don't think, "Wow, that woman is stunning." I think, "Why would anyone go for the 'porn star' look?"

So she can be in a porno? Please! Please say that's why!

zarberg: robsul82: Exactly. And the worst part of all was Cage was pretty calm in the role. A few spots of overacting, but nothing in the vein of The Wicker Man at all.

That's how he gets you nowadays. You go thinking, "Well, if nothing else, maybe he'll get back to The Wicker Man levels of acting excess." And then he doesn't!

I absolutely loved Cage in Adaptation.

Cage was great in that, The Weather Man, Lord of War. Adaptation at least went to the Oscars, the latter two flopped and have been generally forgotten. All that teaches Cage is that these quiet dramas can bite it and let's make Knowing, which sadly was a big hit.

Dr.Knockboots: Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".

2 great lines from that movie always gives me chills just due tothe delivery:

"Detectives. Detectives. DETECTIVES!"

"John Doe has the upper hand."

Took my son and his friend to see this pile of fail.

Actually slept for an hour.

The best CGI ever

I mean you know how hard it is to hide a five head

So much hate for Transformers and Michael Bay, though I can't say I'm shocked to see that here. I don't know about all of you, but I go to movies now based on certain expectations of what I'm going to get. I went and saw Transformers 2 with the expectations that I was going to get lots of explosions and robots fighting, and I came away satisfied. I went and saw Public Enemies this weekend expecting a good crime drama and good acting, and I came away satisfied. Contrary to what some people seem to think, I believe it's possible to enjoy both fine art and popcorn flicks at the movies if you keep realistic expectations and form your own opinions instead of listening to critics.

Don't get me wrong, I like reading Ebert's reviews, just AFTER I've seen the movie and formed my own opinions first. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I certainly wouldn't flame the guy like some of those emailers did though.

FTA: If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

As a lover of all types of films, I really like this statement.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

Awesome.

LaBoeuf, who's actually a fine actor, is the stand-in for the male viewers' greatest fears about themselves. No matter how great a loser they might be, they can't be as losery a loser as Sam Witwicky. And yet, Sam has awesome giant robots stomping around telling him he's the most important awesome person ever. And he has the hottest girlfriend in the universe, Megan Fox, for whom banality is a huge aphrodisiac. The more pathetic Sam gets, the more Fox's lips pout and her nipples point, like little Irish setters.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

That. Was. Awesome.

/kinda wanted to see the film for mindless summer movie experience
//now...notsomuch....

Inaditch: The term WHARRGARBL needs to be stricken from human consciousness forever.

My problem is it's rampant overuse. It was created as a response to the increasingly crazy shiat Republicans have been spouting since Obama took office. They're seemingly coming unhinged and saying weirder and weirder things. Combine that with a funny pick of a dog attacking a hose, and you have a meme.

Now we're using it to describe fanboy rage? Different animals.

DamnYankees: robsul82: Exactly. And the worst part of all was Cage was pretty calm in the role. A few spots of overacting, but nothing in the vein of The Wicker Man at all.

That's how he gets you nowadays. You go thinking, "Well, if nothing else, maybe he'll get back to The Wicker Man levels of acting excess." And then he doesn't!

From Wiki:

Having noticed that the last date on the paper is not accompanied by coordinates, further clues in Lucinda's home lead John and Diana to realize that the '33' listed as the death toll for the final disaster is actually 'EE' reversed, which Lucinda meant to represent 'Everyone Else'.


That's retarded. RE-TAR-DED.

Actually, the way Alex Proyas filmed it, set it up, the EE moment was the one spooky and decent moment in the film. Then everything just got even worse.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

Came in here to reference this.

Leaving happy.

TheDeathMerchant: If you go to see Transformers 1 or 2 expecting anything other than a bunch of giant robots beating the crap out of one another and Megan Fox being ridiculously hot, you have paid to see the wrong movie.

Then explain Tuturro's asinine role in both movies. The character is neither giant robot nor hot chick, and he's just an annoying PITA.

TheDeathMerchant: If you go to see Transformers 1 or 2 expecting anything other than a bunch of giant robots beating the crap out of one another and Megan Fox being ridiculously hot, you have paid to see the wrong movie.

Except Transformers 1 contained none of that.

Ahh yes, once again the Fark masses are bashing something successful.

The family and I have seen it twice now, we thoroughly enjoyed it. It's great for what it is, an action film. If you go into it expecting a flawless plot, then you weren't meant to enjoy it in the first place.

Ebert is an idiot, all critics are.

/SpongeBob is Skids and Wheelie, my daughter loved that.

A sequel to a movie based on a cartoon sucks? Whodathunkit?

I saw it. I've seen worse, but all the children in the theater seemed to really enjoy it. I kinda think that was the point...

ObscureNameHere: Excen:
I believe Randall Graves had something poignant to say about the subject:

They are an unholy curse from the beast we call the desolate one. (click-pop)

/He is like a prophet, man. . .

Can you tell me the gist? I can YouTube from work and I am curious to know now what the link is talking about.

Watch Clerks 2. It's not as fresh as the original, but I'll be damned if Kevin Smith isn't some sort of weird, basement-dwelling cinematic prophet.

CUE THE SPOILERS!!!

Anyway, Elias (possibly the most obvious latent-gay character ever filmed) is trying to defend Transformers from the criticism of Randall Graves and fails miserably.

Picture, if you will, Brian Boitano stepping into the octagon with Fedor Emilianenko. . .

Richard in a Box: I went and saw Transformers 2 with the expectations that I was going to get lots of explosions and robots fighting, and I came away satisfied.

Considering the last few years have give us "summer popcorn flicks" like Star Trek, Iron Man, and The Dark Night, how the hell can you still make excuses for something like this? I mean, its very possible to make a fun action movie which is *great*.

I look at it this way. This movie was made for kids. So have kids review it.

My 8 year old son, thinks this is the greatest movie ever.

Now, If I had him watch "There will be blood" what do you think his response would be?

My 2 favorite things about Transformers 2...

1)My son screaming, laughing and cheering in the theater.
2) Megan Fox from the neck down.

Win, win.

TheDeathMerchant: If you go to see Transformers 1 or 2 expecting anything other than a bunch of giant robots beating the crap out of one another and Megan Fox being ridiculously hot, you have paid to see the wrong movie.

Spoily (But not nearly as bad as Bay spoiled it):

First off, there was very little robot fighting in this movie. Devastator (I believe?) possibly the biggest baddest robot ever built doesn't even end up in a robot fight and gives up after being plinked by the navy. And that scene didn't even make sense. (the navy just blind fires at the pyramids in gaza because some dude on the radio told him too)

Second, There is absolutely no reason why a movie about robots fighting has to be bad. It is not a predetermined outcome. The movie very well could have been mediocre to good, but instead was a pile of shiat, because for some reason Michael Bay can make half a billion dollars in his first weekend after a dogpoo release and that's a reason to give him another movie deal.

black_knight: And I tend to think of this when I hear of movie critics:

I'll never forget a scene from one of the episodes...borrowing the exact words from Wikiquote since a paraphrasing doesn't do it justice:

Jay: I am a movie critic by trade and until recently, I got paid to tell you people which movies merely stink and which ones you shouldn't screen near an open flame. Well, I'm putting the burden of lousy movies back on you.

It's very simple: if you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies. If the movie used to be a TV show, just don't go. After Roman numeral II, give it a rest. If the movie is a remake of a classic, rent the classic. Tell them you want stories about people, not a hundred million dollars of stunts and explosives. People, it's up to you. If the movie stinks, just don't go.

DamnYankees: Dr.Knockboots: Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".

2 great lines from that movie always gives me chills just due tothe delivery:

"Detectives. Detectives. DETECTIVES!"

"John Doe has the upper hand."

And if the studio suits got their way, Doe would've failed, lunged for Mills' gun or something. Say what you will about Brad Pitt, but he had it put specifically into his contract that New Line could not change the ending. They tried to anyway, but Pitt stood his ground.

I had to go through the five stages of grieving before I could properly discuss this film.

The first surprised me and unfortunately built up my expectations for this one. But I would have NEVER in a MILLION years expected it to be THIS bad.

I was physically drained when I left the theater after trying to understand the plot, where the explosions were coming from, subduing my hatred of the racisticons, and eye fatigue from tracking all the goddamn senseless explosions.

I LOVE stupid action movies and they ALWAYS fall into bad but good action or so bad it's a comedy. This was the first time it just didn't fit anywhere. It's technically not a movie.

It's like going to a restaurant and someone serves you boiled paper. You can eat it and you do trying to find where the taste is or whether it's some new way to enjoy food you're just not getting but once it's digested and comes out the other end as paper, you sit on the bowl and just get farking MAD!!!!

brigid_fitch: Blair Witch--some didn't find it the least bit scary and felt cheated that they never showed the witch. Those are the ones I look at and say they just didn't "get it".

Actually, most people didn't find it the least bit scary and the fact they never showed the witch is irrelevant and would have made the movie even worse. The guy standing in the corner was predictable. I was fully expecting it, and yes I understand he was standing there of his own free will. I got it and still thought it was god awful.

and now, back to Transformers

wkiernan: YOU MUST GO TO THE ARTICLE AND CLICK ON THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL.

That is all.

I'm wondering what the purpose of that commercial in the blog post is. Did Bay direct it?

I wouldn't be surprised; his milk commercial, which made his name, was totally awesome)

robsul82: And if the studio suits got their way, Doe would've failed, lunged for Mills' gun or something. Say what you will about Brad Pitt, but he had it put specifically into his contract that New Line could not change the ending. They tried to anyway, but Pitt stood his ground.

Pitt does a magnificent job in that last scene. The whole fight within himself whether or not to kill Doe was brilliantly acted. That dude doesn't get enough credit for his mad skillz.

aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

Considering all this consternation over a film like Transformers 2, can you imagine what would have happened if Fark and this robust internet culture had existed 10 years ago when The Phantom Menace came out? I mean, Google's own servers would have melted.

DamnYankees: robsul82: And if the studio suits got their way, Doe would've failed, lunged for Mills' gun or something. Say what you will about Brad Pitt, but he had it put specifically into his contract that New Line could not change the ending. They tried to anyway, but Pitt stood his ground.

Pitt does a magnificent job in that last scene. The whole fight within himself whether or not to kill Doe was brilliantly acted. That dude doesn't get enough credit for his mad skillz.

When people started going gaga over The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, specifically "wow, I had no idea Brad Pitt could act so well," I'd just think to myself, "Another person who didn't see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Fark Warner Brothers for dumping that magnificent film.

Wow, aggravatedmonkey, I had no idea that "meh" could be encapsulated so succinctly.

/Don't get me wrong, I'd pee in her butt, but make her leave afterward

Dr.Knockboots: I stopped listening to critics because:

1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.
2. They are getting paid for an opinion, not everybody likes the same stuff..I don't care about your opinion, I'll make my own decisions on what to like and not like.

True, and you don't go to a movie like this expecting it to be an academy award nominee.

NikolaiFarkoff: I've noticed the comments on RottenTomatoes (in response to critics) are only slightly more intelligent than your average YouTube thread. Light years ahead of b-tards or Honda tuner forums.

If you thin /b/tards are worth than youtubers you haven't spent much time on 4chan.

Rogue71371: I look at it this way. This movie was made for kids. So have kids review it.

My 8 year old son, thinks this is the greatest movie ever.

Now, If I had him watch "There will be blood" what do you think his response would be?

My 2 favorite things about Transformers 2...

1)My son screaming, laughing and cheering in the theater.
2) Megan Fox from the neck down.

Win, win.

**clicks profile**

LMFAO:

When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

QFT, QFT.

The things I'm a qualified expert in aren't things I tend to debate about, but in many, many aspects of life, there's having an opinion, and there's being just flat wrong.

Yet the common belief is "everyone has an opinion, man, and that doesn't make one more valid than the next." Well, if all opinions were equal, that would certainly be true.

But all opinions are not equal, and some things are not subject to opinion other than "I liked it; I didn't like it," and that's as far as you can go. That's not the beginning of an evaluation, it's the end.

"Afternoon Delight" is a good pop song. It has everything a pop song should have -- memorable hooks, comfortable structure, easy changes, no musical wankery. I hate that song with an indescribable fury, a burning hatred beyond the words mortal man.

Richard in a Box: So much hate for Transformers and Michael Bay, though I can't say I'm shocked to see that here. I don't know about all of you, but I go to movies now based on certain expectations of what I'm going to get. I went and saw Transformers 2 with the expectations that I was going to get lots of explosions and robots fighting, and I came away satisfied.

I like the first Transformers movie. All I want out of a movie is just to have a good time watching it; I really don't care much beyond that.

The 2nd one is really just ass. It's one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen...not the worst, but the dumbest.

Dr_Gats: But the one thing I will not agree with is the above quote. HOW THE FARK can you possibly not have loved the optimus death scene? AWESOME robot action, was probably the best part I took away from the movie!

Mark your spoilers next time, asshole.

/there's not much to spoil, but it's a principle.

Shadowknight: My problem is it's rampant overuse.

That's the problem with memes on the Internet. It's like teenagers and swearing. Swear words can be very powerful and effective when used sparingly and appropriately. Use them all the time and you don't sound cool, you sound like a farking moron.

All I have to say is, after two Transformers movies, where the hell my Gobots movie at??????

I absolutely love this genre of movies! Keeps the yappie kids out of the good movies.

DamnYankees: Considering all this consternation over a film like Transformers 2, can you imagine what would have happened if Fark and this robust internet culture had existed 10 years ago when The Phantom Menace came out? I mean, Google's own servers would have melted.

And you would've had just as many happy to be "satisfied" jackasses equating the term "popcorn flick" to "mindless garbage" then too.

robsul82: I'd just think to myself, "Another person who didn't see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Fark Warner Brothers for dumping that magnificent film.

I saw the first 3 minutes of that movie one time. I really need to see it. Casey Affleck is a very good actor, and Pitt is just fantastic in most things. I think we're sort of in a Golden Age where the huge movie stars (Pitt, Clooney, Bale, Cruise) are all legitimately good actors. That wasn't always the case.

This is the first movie I ever walked out on in my life. It made the first transformers look like Citizen Kane.

amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

Yeah... for me it was like "woo hoo, hot chick", and then I saw that monstrosity and went "blhhharrghhh".

amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

DamnYankees: Dr.Knockboots: Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".

2 great lines from that movie always gives me chills just due tothe delivery:

"Detectives. Detectives. DETECTIVES!"

"John Doe has the upper hand."

No, best line:

Det. Mills: "Has he tried to speak or communicate in any way?"
Dr.: "Even if his brain were not mush...which it is...he chewed off his own tongue long ago."

I'm surprised none of the critics, Michael Bay, etc didn't look at a map. Look it up... Giza, Petra (Wadi Mousa), Aqaba, Karnak. Not within a 5 minutes drive.

If you can see something being air dropped from Petra, I salute you. And if you can fall onto the Temple at Karnak from Giza, you are really tall!

So, wait, I have a question: Is the movie really all giant robots fighting and explosions? If so. . . that sounds about right. Really. The first Transformers wasn't a good film, but the giant robot fights were fun. And if the second film spends more time on giant robot fights and less on humans, even if they make no sense at all, I imagine it is better.

But even people that generally like mindless action movies say Transformers 2 sucks. Oh well, I'll guess I'll watch Crank again and see over the top action done right.

Roger Ebert's main job is to be a festering sump of ooze.

Telos: ObscureNameHere: Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

Sorry if I'm capable of noticing when someone writes an outright lie when he's trying to make a movie look bad.

Ooh, or how about let's explain the entire decepticon plan ourselves in 2 sentences and THEN claim the movie never explained it? Even though you just did, based on watching the movie.

Yeah.

The real thing is, the actual problems he noticed were made less noticeable in his blog by the crap he made up. when you've read 10 misinterpretations/lies/retarded statements the 2 or 3 true ones just kind of fade away...

/liked the movie
//it was FUN
///blog article was stupid.

Transformers 2 is the only movie that been so bad unanimously, that I don't even want to pirate it, let alone watch it.

Inaditch: The term WHARRGARBL needs to be stricken from human consciousness forever.

Few people realize that WHARRGARBL is a perfectly cromulent word. It actually comes from Chinese, 哇而嘎而不了, which means "crying and cackling to no end."

spanky_pete: The family and I have seen it twice now, we thoroughly enjoyed it. It's great for what it is, an action film. If you go into it expecting a flawless plot, then you weren't meant to enjoy it in the first place.

No.

I can't state this enough, or loudly enough.

Aliens is great for what it is, an action film. Terminator 2 is great for what it is, an action film. Iron Man was great for what it is, an action film. Hell, even The Rock was pretty darned good for an action film.

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Empire Strikes Back, Die Hard, Independance Day, Minority Report, The Bourne Identity, The Matrix, yadda yadda yadda.

You've seen good action films. Michael Bay does not make those. He makes movies that have good action in them... but everything else in the movie is pure cringeworthy shiat. Lame plot, lame acting, lame jokes, lame writing, etc.

Until Bay makes a movie that is quite literally 100% action, this means I will be cringing through every part of the movie that is not shiat getting blown up. That's not how I want to spend a few hours.

So, obviously, this is the correct movie for Bay:

One of my favorite Roger Ebert reviews of all time is for the movie North.

Here's the first paragraph:

I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.

Link to the full review

Richard in a Box: So much hate for Transformers and Michael Bay, though I can't say I'm shocked to see that here. I don't know about all of you, but I go to movies now based on certain expectations of what I'm going to get. I went and saw Transformers 2 with the expectations that I was going to get lots of explosions and robots fighting, and I came away satisfied. I went and saw Public Enemies this weekend expecting a good crime drama and good acting, and I came away satisfied. Contrary to what some people seem to think, I believe it's possible to enjoy both fine art and popcorn flicks at the movies if you keep realistic expectations and form your own opinions instead of listening to critics.

Don't get me wrong, I like reading Ebert's reviews, just AFTER I've seen the movie and formed my own opinions first. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I certainly wouldn't flame the guy like some of those emailers did though.

I feel better now. Thought I was going crazy.

never saw whining about sharp knees in so many forms.

Too much CGI? How else do you expect them to do huge robots? Build freaking huge robots? Im pretty sure if that was possible we would all have one.

Megan Fox not hot because she looks like a porn star? Are you listening to yourselves?

Crappy action sequences? This was a big robot film, not indie wu shu. If you want 5 star choreography please go to broadway.

lukelightning: Inaditch: The term WHARRGARBL needs to be stricken from human consciousness forever.

Few people realize that WHARRGARBL is a perfectly cromulent word. It actually comes from Chinese, 哇而嘎而不了, which means "crying and cackling to no end."

Holy shiat. As a person who speaks Chinese, that is 100% brilliant. I am in awe.

Considering the suck that Bay has at anything but pure action, this is the movie Bay should make:



/hotlinked

DamnYankees: Considering all this consternation over a film like Transformers 2, can you imagine what would have happened if Fark and this robust internet culture had existed 10 years ago when The Phantom Menace came out? I mean, Google's own servers would have melted.

Some minor Star Wars news came out and fark got up to 130+ replies (new window)

t3knomanser: Anhydrous Dihydrogen Monoxide: The first one was mindless fun.

No, there was not. The first Transformers was so distant from fun that the light from fun will take billions of years to reach Transformers.

For what should have been a vaguely retarded action-fest, we got just vaguely retarded. We got 45 minutes of some inscrutable subplot involving the NSA and hackers that involved absolutely nothing exploding and only little tiny robots. We got 45 minutes of gag-inducing romantic subplots involving nothing exploding and only a robot disguised as a car. We got 45 minutes of pratfalls, and about 5 minutes of fighting, and honestly- it wasn't even very good fighting.

Seriously, when you finally get to the big epic robot battle, and for all your special effects mastery, you can't do more than make me yawn, you are a shiatty, shiatty director. Michael Bay couldn't make getting crack injected directly into your heart exciting.

You know what I wanted in the cartoon series? More Spike. Whenever I saw the robots talking or fighting, all I could think was "where's Spike?" "Spike should be teaching them to love and learn the human way." "All these nonsense alien robots make no sense, I need Spike to ground the series. Especially after he is crippled. That gives meaning to the show."

DamnYankees: robsul82: I'd just think to myself, "Another person who didn't see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Fark Warner Brothers for dumping that magnificent film.

I saw the first 3 minutes of that movie one time. I really need to see it. Casey Affleck is a very good actor, and Pitt is just fantastic in most things. I think we're sort of in a Golden Age where the huge movie stars (Pitt, Clooney, Bale, Cruise) are all legitimately good actors. That wasn't always the case.

Oh, dude, you've gotta. Sit down and just enjoy, man. That's a movie that'll be studied for years to come, and one that'll be recognized as a classic to the point that people of the future will be legitimately surprised to hear it didn't make any money on release. Casey Affleck was brilliant, Pitt matched him note for note...the problem was that WB thought they were getting a typical Western and they received a near-three hour rumination on fame, heroism, and how we got to our current celebrity culture. So they shelved it, tried to get the director to edit it into a two-hour action film, Pitt went to bat for him and WB said, "fark it, just dump it in 500 theaters for two weeks and call it a day."

belhade: Katie98_KT: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

oh my god that's awesome.

I agree. Hell, it makes me want to watch the movie even more now!

Can Michael Bay be considered the modern Ed Wood?

You mean Michael Bay will eventually resort to making porn? How the hell would Michael Bay direct porn movie?

From a nostalgic point of view, I have to again whine that the robots look like candy canes fell onto a bling jewelry factory.. i.e., they look like shiat.

/Thanks Michael Bay
//for raping my childhood
///not in an MJ kind of way
////Stick to Bad Boys

Pxtl: Hell, even The Rock was pretty darned good for an action film.

Pxtl: You've seen good action films. Michael Bay does not make those.

Ummmm....

/the rest of your post was spot on
//could have used a ST shout-out

notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

/// And to those of you who loved it-- good for you. I liked the first part of the first movie but could not imagine having to live through the last 10 minutes of film one for two hours.

Dude (and Roger) - it's a movie about Giant Sentient Robots from a Comic Book - not Shakespeare or Schindler's List. And it was tied for first this week too. So neener neener. Plus pretentious folks like you aren't clogging up my theater for when I go so thanks for that. - Raging criticism and snobbery are national sports akin to crabs in a barrel - if one of the crabs starts making progress toward escaping everyone pulls him down. I did see Transformers and it was most excellent, the director and writer answered all the character questions I had, they slowed down some of the fights to where I could enjoy them and gave me two hours of fun and special effects and everything I could want in a summer movie. If I wanted to be preached to about how bad the human race is and all of that there are plenty of movies you and Roger can nod sagely about and tell us how 'important' this movie is and how we must all march off to see it. But my dollar for movies goes for entertainment. Come to think of it, the critics also got what they wanted - something to be sanctimonious and preachy about and they could smugly wag their fingers about how base the rest of the viewing public is. -

Excen: Wow, aggravatedmonkey, I had no idea that "meh" could be encapsulated so succinctly.

I'm not impressed by her anymore. I don't dig the whore appeal. Also, her rack is underwhelming.

/don't get me started on those knees

goddamn, this applies to A LOT of you...

Who's the slut everyone keep posting?
Is she bi-sexual

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: I went and saw Transformers 2 with the expectations that I was going to get lots of explosions and robots fighting, and I came away satisfied.

Considering the last few years have give us "summer popcorn flicks" like Star Trek, Iron Man, and The Dark Night, how the hell can you still make excuses for something like this? I mean, its very possible to make a fun action movie which is *great*.

I enjoyed all three of those movies as well, though I didn't fawn over TDK as much as Farkers did.

Here's the thing, though: I don't need to make excuses. I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see. I don't see where it's automatically required to go into every movie expecting Oscar-caliber acting, writing, and directing when movies are made to entertain, and people get enjoyment out of different types of entertainment. Honestly, I find myself enjoying more movies this way and appreciating the truly artistic ones even more than before.

But hey, that's just me.

/Oh, and having Jetfire make an appearance is super nostalgic since I still have my Generation 1 Jetfire toy.
//Though I wish I had kept him in better shape
///Still transforms though!

You want some decent Transformers? Check out The Rude Awakening of Optimus Prime (new window, NSFW language)

gad: notmtwain: Transformers had a bigger week to week decline in business than any other movie in the top 10.

Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

/// And to those of you who loved it-- good for you. I liked the first part of the first movie but could not imagine having to live through the last 10 minutes of film one for two hours.

Dude (and Roger) - it's a movie about Giant Sentient Robots from a Comic Book - not Shakespeare or Schindler's List. -

FAIL.

stopped reading after that

aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

RemyDuron: but the giant robot fights were fun

No they weren't. And they certainly weren't good enough to justify the rest of the film.

Dr_Gats: Crappy action sequences? This was a big robot film, not indie wu shu.

Soooo... wait a second. The only purpose of the film was to justify giant robot action sequences. So, nobody should complain that the action sequences sucked, because it wasn't supposed to have good action sequences?

Nobody expects wu shu from giant robots. But I'd take the action from the worst kaiju films over anything Bay put into Transformers. At least those have some sense of visual composition and make some kind of sense.

Michael Bay directs action like he's finger painting.

HowAboutNo: All I have to say is, after two Transformers movies, where the hell my Gobots movie at??????

Gobots = Win

No one went into TF or TF2 expecting "an Oscar movie," you disingenuous assholes. If nothing else, try not using the same 3 farking talking points every time.

Richard in a Box: Here's the thing, though: I don't need to make excuses. I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see. I don't see where it's automatically required to go into every movie expecting Oscar-caliber acting, writing, and directing when movies are made to entertain, and people get enjoyment out of different types of entertainment. Honestly, I find myself enjoying more movies this way and appreciating the truly artistic ones even more than before.

But hey, that's just me.

I hope the next time you go into a fast food joint and find out someone spat in your burger you take the same attitude. I mean, its just fast food, and you were expecting shiat, so I suppose you should be happy with horrible food which was salivated on.

Expecting crap does not mitigate getting crap.

for the Soundwave fans (new window)

Richard in a Box:
/Oh, and having Jetfire make an appearance is super nostalgic since I still have my Generation 1 Jetfire toy.
//Though I wish I had kept him in better shape
///Still transforms though!

I loved the visuals for jetfire, they did an awesome job on him. Was sad he didn't have a bigger part.

TheDeathMerchant: If you go to see Transformers 1 or 2 expecting anything other than a bunch of giant robots beating the crap out of one another and Megan Fox being ridiculously hot, you have paid to see the wrong movie.

I'm not certain why people are calling Megan Fox "ridiculously hot." Sure, she's attractive, but the same could be said for many chicks in her age range.

Not to mention the fact that she has almost zero acting ability, and depends on her tits and lips to make up for it. (In before "welcome to what all women do".)

/Cue the "I wouldn't hit that, just look at her sharp knees" pic.
//I would in fact hit that, but I wouldn't consider her more attractive than the college chicks I see on a daily basis.
///Does anyone else think that her forehead covers half her face or something?

aggravatedmonkey: goddamn, this applies to A LOT of you...

I don't think anybody is saying they wouldn't hit it. Megan Fox is smoking hot.

But she looks like a porn star, has a weird thumb, and could easily be replaced by any other hot chick in Hollywood, and quite frankly we're all sick about hearing about her.

When you spend $100 million to make a movie, you'd better have something more to say about it than "look, we got a pretty attractive lady in here doing sexy things". There are guys shooting movies that cover that ground over the weekend, for a lot less money.

Ebert can suck a big one. Transformers 2 was a fun popcorn movie. Not every movie has to be freakin Citizen Kane. My family and I enjoyed it because we got what we expected: giant robots fighting each other. If you expected more than that, you picked the wrong movie. I'm smarter than the people who are disappointed in it because I had the right mindset going on. It is what it is. If you expected anything more you just didn't 'get it'. It did what it set out to do. Fun popcorn movie during which I can eat popcorn which I can't do with good movies because I might accidentally miss one of the subtitles when I'm trying to get popcorn out of my teeth. If you don't like this movie then you're a pretentious artsy indie arthouse film critic who needs to get the sand out of his vagina. I don't actually know what the words pretentious, artsy, indie or arthouse mean. I like fun popcorn movies where you can just turn your brain off, check your mind at the door, and enjoy yourself. I like stuff you don't have to think about! Puke! Now that's a funny word.

This has been my impression of a retard

/Can't wait for Transformers 3 but how can can it top the first 2?
//Fun popcorn movie
///Retard

tricycleracer: Can you explain Megan Fox's appeal?

Yes. She looks like a porn star and has the same acting talent as one, yet for some reason she makes mainstream movies. This tonal disconnect is what's so appealing about her.

Win.

I have never understood Megan Fox's appeal. I always felt strange about telling people that because they would look at me as if I suddenly turned gay. But that line sums it up. She looks like a porn star but hasn't done porn (yet).

Don't get me wrong, she is a very beautiful woman. But there are far more attractive women out there with real talent.

amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

Richard in a Box: I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see.

So, that must be something they added in the sequel. Because it didn't show up in the first Transformers film.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

this review had me in tears! LOL

you are a puppet: This has been my impression of a retard

Ha. Let's see how many bites you get.

MightyPez: I have never understood Megan Fox's appeal. I always felt strange about telling people that because they would look at me as if I suddenly turned gay. But that line sums it up. She looks like a porn star but hasn't done porn (yet).

Don't get me wrong, she is a very beautiful woman. But there are far more attractive women out there with real talent.

I said this to my friends after TF1. She was hot, sure, but nothing special.

brigid_fitch: DamnYankees: Dr.Knockboots: Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".

2 great lines from that movie always gives me chills just due tothe delivery:

"Detectives. Detectives. DETECTIVES!"

"John Doe has the upper hand."

No, best line:

Det. Mills: "Has he tried to speak or communicate in any way?"
Dr.: "Even if his brain were not mush...which it is...he chewed off his own tongue long ago."

My favorite was the scene between Brad Pitt the massage parlour guy:

David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

DamnYankees: you are a puppet: This has been my impression of a retard

Ha. Let's see how many bites you get.

Admittedly, I was with it until the sentence about "popcorn flick at which I can eat popcorn." Then I start to laugh, out loud as it were.

Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

I'm not sure if anyone realized it or not, but Roland Emmerich has released a new trailer for '2012' specifically to address the concerns raised in this article.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0

Did anyone link to this FAQ-style review of the movie yet?

My six yers old said the girl was pretty and the stuff blowing up was cool


//that is all

amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

well i can't just arbitrarily start posting pics of hot chicks. that's a threadjack brotha! (and a 24 hour time-out)

have to wait for the boobie threads.

Ah yes, but The Hours and Sex, Lies and Videotape both won Oscars for best picture.

Go figure.

robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

his kung fu is still sooo superior to anyone elses

drxym: Michael Bay is a hack. It's not a generational thing, or a "not getting it" thing. His movies are cut too fast, incoherent, badly scripted, often make no sense, poorly acted, filled with loud explosions and topped off with bombastic music. He is incapable of telling even the simplest of stories without farking it up in the process.

In other words, he might be some sort of bizarre clone of George Lucas and Ed Wood?

SynthLord: When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

QFT, QFT.

The things I'm a qualified expert in aren't things I tend to debate about, but in many, many aspects of life, there's having an opinion, and there's being just flat wrong.

Yet the common belief is "everyone has an opinion, man, and that doesn't make one more valid than the next." Well, if all opinions were equal, that would certainly be true.

But all opinions are not equal, and some things are not subject to opinion other than "I liked it; I didn't like it," and that's as far as you can go. That's not the beginning of an evaluation, it's the end.

"Afternoon Delight" is a good pop song. It has everything a pop song should have -- memorable hooks, comfortable structure, easy changes, no musical wankery. I hate that song with an indescribable fury, a burning hatred beyond the words mortal man.

It is a good quote, but here is where is falls apart in my opinion:

How do you prove, as fact, that a movie/song/book/painting is good?

I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

/That's the thing I always disliked about subjects like English or Art History in school.
//Math and science 4TW!

DamnYankees: robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

Yeah, noticed that the first time through Fight Club, and suddenly I remembered Brad Pitt was in this one too.

aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

well i can't just arbitrarily start posting pics of hot chicks. that's a threadjack brotha! (and a 24 hour time-out)

have to wait for the boobie threads.

It's all in the comment;-)

/"This would have been a much better hottie for transformers 2 and would have shut everyone up"

DamnYankees: robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

You know, I catch something new in that movie every time I watch it, and still never put that together, awesome. Watching fight club again tonight.

Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I simultaneously agree with both you and Mr. Ebert. I think this movie is quite likely to be an insult to my intelligence. But I know myself well enough to know I'll probably still enjoy it.

It's clear that all decepticons can teleport (remember jetfire was originally a decepticon and then just decided to change sides) because they are constantly being redeployed from space, without any explanation as to how that's possible. Teleportation. There's your continuity *facepalm*

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: Here's the thing, though: I don't need to make excuses. I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see. I don't see where it's automatically required to go into every movie expecting Oscar-caliber acting, writing, and directing when movies are made to entertain, and people get enjoyment out of different types of entertainment. Honestly, I find myself enjoying more movies this way and appreciating the truly artistic ones even more than before.

But hey, that's just me.

I hope the next time you go into a fast food joint and find out someone spat in your burger you take the same attitude. I mean, its just fast food, and you were expecting shiat, so I suppose you should be happy with horrible food which was salivated on.

Expecting crap does not mitigate getting crap.

Easy, tiger. You'd think I insulted your mom or something.

Your analogy doesn't work, either. I go into a fast food restaurant expecting fast food that meets a minimum criteria (i.e., not being spat in) like I expected a movie called "Transformers 2" to have robots fighting. As long as my fast food is edible and this particular movie had robots fighting, I met my minimum requirements and was able to enjoy it.

Walker's career shows what a crapshoot Hollywood can be in what directors you get for your work - with Seven, he got David Fincher, who wasn't letting a studio change the ending no way no how, and with 8MM, he got Joel Schumacher, who said, "The studio wants it to be lighter in tone? Sure, why not!"

And now we're back at...Nicolas Cage.

/fark you, Kevin Bacon

aggravatedmonkey: goddamn, this applies to A LOT of you...

The point is that the balance between talent and ass is WAAAAAAAAY out of balance with Megan Fox. She may be hot when properly tarted up, but so is Avril Lavign. Can you picture that-one-chick-from-Transformers even getting nominated for an Oscar? At least Angelina Jolie can act; I mean even Sasha Grey has more acting chops than Megan Fox.

/And Grey does DP for a living!

Dr_Gats: Richard in a Box:
/Oh, and having Jetfire make an appearance is super nostalgic since I still have my Generation 1 Jetfire toy.
//Though I wish I had kept him in better shape
///Still transforms though!

I loved the visuals for jetfire, they did an awesome job on him. Was sad he didn't have a bigger part.

Ditto. I was hoping that Optimus would somehow figure out a way to use his spark to bring him back. Particularly when they were on the carrier, I was hoping he'd come back as an F/A-18 or something. :D

Ku_No_Ichi: If it is an actual line from the movie, I will pay double price for one ticket and actually go see it,

It's an actual line.

But the movie was awful. Youtube the clip for that one line and save that hour and a half of your life.

Here's a clue - During at least two of the interminable and inconsequrntial battel scenes, I found my mind wandering to the point I was noting the emerging trends in fab-boy haircuts amongst th eother movie patrons.

Only Micheal Bay can make giant CGI robots beating the hell out of each other and everything around them... kinda dull.

Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

Well, this is false, empirically speaking. The fact that humans tend to gravitate towards certain things tell you there is something measurable. An overhwhelmingly large number of straight men will tell you that Catherine Zeta Jones is more attractive than Barbara Bush. If there was really nothing objective going on there, we would not expect that result - it would be random. Rather, we can sort of build up a profile of characteristics which correlate with "beauty". Then you test your subject against those characteristics.

You can do this with movies, art, music - anything. It just takes effort. Luckily, people study this shiat, and there are objective resaons why The Godfather is a *better* film than Troll 2.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

I had absolutely no desire to go see this movie, until I read that review. I think I'll see it tonight.

t3knomanser: Richard in a Box: I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see.

So, that must be something they added in the sequel. Because it didn't show up in the first Transformers film.

That's funny, I remember seeing Optimus and Megatron fighting. Where were you?

Enough with the "action movies are supposed to be dumb" bullshiat. I saw Public Enemies yesterday, and it fit all the criteria: lots of violent gun battles, a sexy woman, etc., yet it also had good acting and was an actual movie, not a screeching, incomprehensible headache.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Look at that! My good friend Rob Bricken getting props on Fark for writing a review of Transformers: RotF. Nice!

Richard in a Box: Your analogy doesn't work, either. I go into a fast food restaurant expecting fast food that meets a minimum criteria (i.e., not being spat in) like I expected a movie called "Transformers 2" to have robots fighting. As long as my fast food is edible and this particular movie had robots fighting, I met my minimum requirements and was able to enjoy it.

And many people's 'minimum criteria' for an action movie is (1) understandable action (2) some kind of plot which makes sense and (3) pathos which makes everything 'matter'. TF2, based on everything I've read, fails at achieving these standards.

This movie is a mockery on the Transformers franchise.

gad: Dude (and Roger) - it's a movie about Giant Sentient Robots from a Comic Book - not Shakespeare or Schindler's List.

This has been how I've been viewing the movie since I saw the trailers. I've repeatedly said that I wanted nothing more than explosions & giant battling robots.

However, that doesn't mean that's all we should get. You can have a good action movie with massive CGI, explosions, AND a coherent plot. The Matrix, Dark Knight, Iron Man, Star Trek--Hell, I'd even throw Tropic Thunder in there.

The point is, Bay didn't even try. He just apathetically threw all this shiat together and we're supposed to like it because it's ONLY good points are the explosions & CGI.

Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters.

I don't make films, but I do photography, and writing. All media exist to communicate something. So the quality of any work of art can be evaluated on these grounds:
1) The quality of the message - did it communicate something worth communicating, even if it were only for entertainment's sake?
2) The execution of the message - was it expressed clearly, and in a way that held the audience's attention? If its purpose was to entertain, did it do that? If it were making a statement about the human condition, did it do that?
3) The technical execution of the message - given the technical aspects of the medium, was the medium communicated in a fashion that demonstrates an understanding and dexterity with the medium?

Michael Bay consistently fails on #2 and #3. He always sets out to entertain, but in my experience, rarely succeeds.

I don't get it. The "Transformers" generation is all guys in their mid-thirties to late-twenties. Why is this film so hopelessly pitched at dumbass teenagers?

The kids of today have no visceral connection to Transformers from back in the day, so they can't be relied on as a solid base of viewers.

Why would they take this venerable franchise with its built-in fanbase and turn out such a piece of crap?

I have to wonder if Michael Bay purposefully makes his films worse just to spite the critics. Even those who liked the movie have to admit that the humping dogs, Bumblebee pissing, and Turturro's ass were completely unnecessary. I think this movie would've been much-better received if Bay didn't feel the need to make his film more low-brow than they already were.

If you're really paying 7-12 bucks to see robots fighting, why don't you just rent Transmorphers? Oh right... People who like Transformers 2 are constantly making excuses as to why their acceptance of bottom-feeder drivel has a high-level rational explanation rather than the greater likelihood that they are mildy or wildly retarded.

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

Well, this is false, empirically speaking. The fact that humans tend to gravitate towards certain things tell you there is something measurable. An overhwhelmingly large number of straight men will tell you that Catherine Zeta Jones is more attractive than Barbara Bush. If there was really nothing objective going on there, we would not expect that result - it would be random. Rather, we can sort of build up a profile of characteristics which correlate with "beauty". Then you test your subject against those characteristics.

You can do this with movies, art, music - anything. It just takes effort. Luckily, people study this shiat, and there are objective resaons why The Godfather is a *better* film than Troll 2.

Yeah, measuring what appeals to people is quantifiable, and if you want to judge movies based on that, go for it. I'd like to see how mass studies would hold up though. Critics and movie aficionados would say a movie like "Citizen Kane" is the best movie ever, but I'd like to see if after being required to watch that, that would be true.

A lot of these things go in cycles and are cultural too. To go back to your beauty measurement study, what most people find beautiful now is probably not what would have been the case had that study happened in a different era.

Richard in a Box: SynthLord: When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.

QFT, QFT.

The things I'm a qualified expert in aren't things I tend to debate about, but in many, many aspects of life, there's having an opinion, and there's being just flat wrong.

Yet the common belief is "everyone has an opinion, man, and that doesn't make one more valid than the next." Well, if all opinions were equal, that would certainly be true.

But all opinions are not equal, and some things are not subject to opinion other than "I liked it; I didn't like it," and that's as far as you can go. That's not the beginning of an evaluation, it's the end.

"Afternoon Delight" is a good pop song. It has everything a pop song should have -- memorable hooks, comfortable structure, easy changes, no musical wankery. I hate that song with an indescribable fury, a burning hatred beyond the words mortal man.

It is a good quote, but here is where is falls apart in my opinion:

How do you prove, as fact, that a movie/song/book/painting is good?

I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

/That's the thing I always disliked about subjects like English or Art History in school.
//Math and science 4TW!


The 'right' answer is one where the 'elitists' say it is ... and the rest of the population, well - they're no more then a bunch of uneducated 'unwashed masses.'

How do you know this for sure? Watch the Academy Awards - 95% of the 'popular' movies never win anything - maybe a token 'best costume' or 'best lighting'. It's the 'message movie art' that get all the awards.

/ didn't used to be that way

Uuum... I don't understand the difference.


/Seriously, no one else?

farkingatwork: Telos: ObscureNameHere: Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

Sorry if I'm capable of noticing when someone writes an outright lie when he's trying to make a movie look bad.

Ooh, or how about let's explain the entire decepticon plan ourselves in 2 sentences and THEN claim the movie never explained it? Even though you just did, based on watching the movie.

Yeah.

The real thing is, the actual problems he noticed were made less noticeable in his blog by the crap he made up. when you've read 10 misinterpretations/lies/retarded statements the 2 or 3 true ones just kind of fade away...

/liked the movie
//it was FUN
///blog article was stupid.

Transformers 2 is the only movie that been so bad unanimously, that I don't even want to pirate it, let alone watch it.

Yet it was a fun movie...

But hey, if you want to follow the herd...

Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I wasn't expecting My Dinner with Robo-Andre or anything.

I didn't go see it to watch Great Art. It's Michael Frikkin Bay for Chrissakes (That is for the Sake of Chris, my neighbor). My requirements were:
Robots Battle (Check)
Sexy Chicks (Check and Check)
Asplosions (Check)

Their attempt at Plot was silly at best, and in spots downright insulting. Lucky for me that wasn't a requirment for me to enjoy this one, though.

DamnYankees: Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

All this is making me want to go find a swarm of friends who'll share their copy of the movie with me.

HowAboutNo: All I have to say is, after two Transformers movies, where the hell my Gobots movie at??????

So let me get this straight: you transform into a helicopter and your name is Cop-ter? Lame.

TribeFan695: film more low-brow than it already was.

DROxINxTHExWIND: URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

They give Scarface 2 stars, so I'm not really interested in what a critic thinks.

Even though this was an hour ago...

Honestly, you can't tell me that Scarface was a good movie. Did it have powerful themes? Of course. Did it have interesting, larger-than life characters played by top-notch actors? Undoubtedly. Was its impact upon a large portion of society anything less than profound? The answer is self-evident.

However, the pacing was terrible, the script was mostly crap with a few flashes of brilliance, and the plot was just short of incomprehensible. The first time I saw Scarface, it was a complete thrill. The returns have seriously diminished upon subsequent viewings.

That's not to say I don't like crime movies, either; GoodFellas immediately stops my channel surfing, no matter what.

HIS FARKING GUN WAS IN MY THROAT! OH GOD!

Richard in a Box: That's funny, I remember seeing Optimus and Megatron fighting. Where were you?

Probably asleep, by that point. I think I nodded off around hour six of the interminable NSA hacker garbage.

Richard in a Box: A lot of these things go in cycles and are cultural too. To go back to your beauty measurement study, what most people find beautiful now is probably not what would have been the case had that study happened in a different era.

But that's not relevant. Something can be both "changing" and "objectively measurable". For example, height. What is "tall" in 1750 would probably be "short" now. But we can still measure how many inches high someone is, and we can make intra-epochal categorizations.

As to your Citizen Kane line, that's neither here nor there. That movie requires actual knowledge about film and film history to understand *why* its great. Asking people what the greatest movie is is not better measurement of true quality than asking people who the greatest mathematician is - most people are not sufficiently educated to even make a guess. But that doesn't mean there's no answer.

/Carl Gauss

I agree with Ebert.

Just because there's Peter Cullen doesn't mean I can bridge the gap.

Beyond Generation 1, Transformers series have been nothing short of crap, IMHO. What was once hope for the first movie turned to absolute despair once I learned that superhack Bay was in charge.

To top it off, all it is is one giant commercial for a car maker that's been bailed out in between films, and is probably doomed to fail (as it should).

I'm probably sounding like a crotchety old fanboy, but all of this is absolute nonsense. Until someone decides to either retell or continue the G1 storyline, it just won't be worth it.

And you Megan Fox hounds (heh) can all STUF. Yeah, she's hot, but she's the chick Hayden Christensen: All sparkle, no real talent. A great set of knockers doesn't make a great film, either.

If it had a decent story, I'd be OK with it. But from what I've heard, it's all killer and no filler. Hollywood as a whole in under two hours. Yay...

/get off my lawn

lukelightning: So let me get this straight: you transform into a helicopter and your name is Cop-ter? Lame.

"Uhhh ... Cy ... I mean ... Mr. Kill?"

I even laughed at that idiocy when I was 10. I'm still waiting for a Robotech live action film.

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: Your analogy doesn't work, either. I go into a fast food restaurant expecting fast food that meets a minimum criteria (i.e., not being spat in) like I expected a movie called "Transformers 2" to have robots fighting. As long as my fast food is edible and this particular movie had robots fighting, I met my minimum requirements and was able to enjoy it.

And many people's 'minimum criteria' for an action movie is (1) understandable action (2) some kind of plot which makes sense and (3) pathos which makes everything 'matter'. TF2, based on everything I've read, fails at achieving these standards.

OK, that's fine. I'm not here to define what other people want, I was merely making a statement regarding what I expected (and what I think most moderately intelligent people would really expect to get from a Transformers sequel directed by Michael Bay) and how I was satisfied with that. If people want those things and don't see them available in the movie, they can not go and see it. Not like the movie studios care too much considering how much it raked in! :)

/Movies are a business after all
//They can have artistic value as well, but that is certainly #2 on most studio's list these days

Excen: I mean even Sasha Grey has more acting chops than Megan Fox.

touché

/hot like the screenplay

robsul82: HIS FARKING GUN WAS IN MY THROAT! OH GOD!

Doesn't work as well on the page. With his blood racing at 300 beats a minute, that dialogue pops.

this is beautiful. Not Ebert's words, but this thread & the necessity for him to write that. Its made out like there is this legion of fans attacking critics & people that don't like the Transformers movies. I must ask, what forums & venues are these responses being made on? Threads & columns from people frothing at the mouth that anyone could possibly enjoy these movies. So almost on a daily basis a butt-hurt farker seeks out a story or blog posting about Transformers 2 and places a snarky headline on it. A handful of people "THIS" it up a few hundred times so it appears as if they're right and have claimed some pseudo victory over the film, however a few people then show up and counter their "So we're all in agreement that Transformers 2 is terrible" world and they once again get their panties in a bunch that not everyone agrees with them. So its the fans of the movie that are obsessed with fighting for the reputation of the movie even though the ratio of snarky to positive headlines on this site are something like 1,000 to 2? It reminds me of the time on Cheers when Norm accuses someone of having no life because they sat at the bar next to him for a long period of time one day.

This also ties nicely with what Mr. Ebert, who is one of the better film critics, wrote here. He goes on at length about his job and the job and role of the reader "It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own." and then sort of verbally fellates his readers that agree with him while taking passive aggressive swipes at his detractors. You can't claim you don't care what people think of your opinions when you obviously do. It also entertains me that critics fail to really see how pointless their job is if they discount provoking responses & flame wars. You can't claim your readers are intelligent without that, because the sole draw to your reviews would be that they're incapable of forming their own thoughts & opinions about movies and need you to tell them what to watch & think.

I especially love the kid from Syracuse that included the "If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge?" thing. He unintentionally summed up exactly why sports fans have abandoned "sports writers" trying to make the counter argument.

I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie. It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were. Believe it or not, not everything made in Hollywood is with the intent of garnering a lot of praise & awards, sometimes movies are simply made to sell tickets, fast food, toys & DVD's. Michael Bay's Transformers movies are just 2 hour commercials, much like how the original cartoons were nothing but 22 minute commercials. Hasbro isn't just credited at the beginning of the movies because they granted the license to use the name, its because they're selling Transformers, and the people happily scarfing up are ok with being advertised to for 2 hours because they like the product.

Is Transformers 2 the best movie of 2009? fark no. Ebert took the cheapest way to "winning" his argument by displaying the words of idiots that actually think it is. Transformers 2 isn't as good as "Up" and hell probably isn't even as good as Indiana Jones 4. The point is, it was never meant to be. If anything could be more ridiculous than morons calling it the best film of 2009, its so called "intelligent people" who dedicate an retarded amount of their time tearing up a farkING MICHAEL BAY movie. The online fight equivalent to beating the crap out of a blind 2-year-old or using an entire can of gasoline to burn an ant hill.

Jack9: It's clear that all decepticons can teleport (remember jetfire was originally a decepticon and then just decided to change sides) because they are constantly being redeployed from space, without any explanation as to how that's possible. Teleportation. There's your continuity *facepalm*

This sort of comment makes me wonder about how poorly so many people seem to pay attention to what they're watching.

None - count'm, none - of the Decepticons are redeployed from space. Many Decepticons are clearly back with the Fallen in the larger ship - the hatchlings Megatron/Starscream interact with - while only a relatively small amount are actually on Earth (what with the Autobots and HIVE hunting them).

When you see them crashing on Earth, that's their first arrival, hence them not having alternate forms.

This is just like the people who seem to not understand the difference between the different shards, the timeline of events (e.g. people thinking Sam absorbs the knowledge from the spark on his first day of college...).

Bored Horde [TotalFark] 2009-07-06 01:52:36 PM
"Transformers was awesome fun. An absolutely awful film, but still great fun."

Definitely. If you're looking for hot-chicks running in slo-mo, robots ripping the cr*p out of each other, and big explosions while you munch some popcorn: This film delivers.

The humor is juvenile (at best), and the plot is weak. I thought it was a bit too political in nature because there was one point where (and I could have misheard it) but I believe they mentioned President Obama by name (instead of just saying "the President"). At one point in the movie the President's representative says that his administration is "considering all possible options" including turning Sam over to the Decepticons... I thought that was a positively despicable misrepresentation of Obama's position WRT the War on Terror.

Richard in a Box: I was merely making a statement regarding what I expected (and what I think most moderately intelligent people would really expect to get from a Transformers sequel directed by Michael Bay) and how I was satisfied with that.

Then just say "this movie was not good but I liked it anyway", and we'd be fine with it.

I've always disliked Transformers. I dunno why. I think I was just the wrong age by a year or two when I was introduced to them. The concept of robots that transform has always just bugged me. It's kind of silly.

Anyways, that said I do love a pointless action movie but the first movie pissed me off. It was just so smarmy and lame. Great effects but ugh... lame movie. I'll rent the second one (I have a modest home theatre setup so it'll be big and loud).

So wait. You're telling me that this wasn't an hour and a half shiatty Chevrolet commercial with explosions and bright colors like the first one, but a TWO HOUR shiatty Chevrolet commercial with explosions and bright colors? Color me surprised.

Jument: I've always disliked Transformers. I dunno why. I think I was just the wrong age by a year or two when I was introduced to them. The concept of robots that transform has always just bugged me. It's kind of silly.

Anyways, that said I do love a pointless action movie but the first movie pissed me off. It was just so smarmy and lame. Great effects but ugh... lame movie. I'll rent the second one (I have a modest home theatre setup so it'll be big and loud).

So, you went into the movie with the preconceived notion that the core concept of the movie was silly and something you disliked? Then you were pissed off at it? Now, you're going to rent the sequel?

Sounds like you're either a glutton for punishment or you're looking to complain.

DamnYankees: Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

You'll appreciate this then:

Leland Orser--the go-to guy when you need a character to freak out. (pops--NSFW)

NikolaiFarkoff: That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome

You really had me going for a bit.

That movie was decent. I would not call it good, let alone 'really good'. Mediocre at best.

/I like not seeing the ending from 5 minutes in.
//The only thing that surprised me about the end was that she got drug off, not the boyfriend

ah man...! Now you ruined it for me!@#$%$#@#!@

/Not really :)

brigid_fitch: DamnYankees: Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

You'll appreciate this then:

Leland Orser--the go-to guy when you need a character to freak out. (pops--NSFW)

Stupid Fark--won't let me link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLS2BmUYEA

mattharvest: None - count'm, none

By none you mean Ravage? Since most of the robots are nameless or so similar looking you can't tell the difference, you may want to ask Bay if he really intended some of them to be the same or not. You just can't tell, regardless of what you saw.

brigid_fitch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLS2BmUYEA

Heh. He played the same kind of role on ST: Voyager also.

It always blows my mind how americans think critics and awards are supposed to parrot box office earnings.

The whole point is to have people with more knowledge of the genre(in this case, films) describe and judge films to hlep you narrow down which ones to see.

Transformers isn't even a popular movie, everyone I know who has seen it hated it. It just had a big ad budget, some big names and a toy franchise people recognize. That doesn't make it artistic or even entertaining.

vanhalenfan32: this is beautiful. Not Ebert's words, but this thread & the necessity for him to write that. Its made out like there is this legion of fans attacking critics & people that don't like the Transformers movies. I must ask, what forums & venues are these responses being made on? Threads & columns from people frothing at the mouth that anyone could possibly enjoy these movies. So almost on a daily basis a butt-hurt farker seeks out a story or blog posting about Transformers 2 and places a snarky headline on it. A handful of people "THIS" it up a few hundred times so it appears as if they're right and have claimed some pseudo victory over the film, however a few people then show up and counter their "So we're all in agreement that Transformers 2 is terrible" world and they once again get their panties in a bunch that not everyone agrees with them. So its the fans of the movie that are obsessed with fighting for the reputation of the movie even though the ratio of snarky to positive headlines on this site are something like 1,000 to 2? It reminds me of the time on Cheers when Norm accuses someone of having no life because they sat at the bar next to him for a long period of time one day.

This also ties nicely with what Mr. Ebert, who is one of the better film critics, wrote here. He goes on at length about his job and the job and role of the reader "It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own." and then sort of verbally fellates his readers that agree with him while taking passive aggressive swipes at his detractors. You can't claim you don't care what people think of your opinions when you obviously do. It also entertains me that critics fail to really see how pointless their job is if they discount provoking responses & flame wars. You can't claim your readers are intelligent without that, because the sole draw to your reviews would be that they're incapable of forming their own thoughts & opinions about movies and need you to tell them what to watch & think.

I especially love the kid from Syracuse that included the "If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge?" thing. He unintentionally summed up exactly why sports fans have abandoned "sports writers" trying to make the counter argument.

I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie. It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were. Believe it or not, not everything made in Hollywood is with the intent of garnering a lot of praise & awards, sometimes movies are simply made to sell tickets, fast food, toys & DVD's. Michael Bay's Transformers movies are just 2 hour commercials, much like how the original cartoons were nothing but 22 minute commercials. Hasbro isn't just credited at the beginning of the movies because they granted the license to use the name, its because they're selling Transformers, and the people happily scarfing up are ok with being advertised to for 2 hours because they like the product.

Is Transformers 2 the best movie of 2009? fark no. Ebert took the cheapest way to "winning" his argument by displaying the words of idiots that actually think it is. Transformers 2 isn't as good as "Up" and hell probably isn't even as good as Indiana Jones 4. The point is, it was never meant to be. If anything could be more ridiculous than morons calling it the best film of 2009, its so called "intelligent people" who dedicate an retarded amount of t ...

I will admit that the movie is superior to a Punch n' Judy puppet show. Barely.

t3knomanser: Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters.

I don't make films, but I do photography, and writing. All media exist to communicate something. So the quality of any work of art can be evaluated on these grounds:
1) The quality of the message - did it communicate something worth communicating, even if it were only for entertainment's sake?
2) The execution of the message - was it expressed clearly, and in a way that held the audience's attention? If its purpose was to entertain, did it do that? If it were making a statement about the human condition, did it do that?
3) The technical execution of the message - given the technical aspects of the medium, was the medium communicated in a fashion that demonstrates an understanding and dexterity with the medium?

Michael Bay consistently fails on #2 and #3. He always sets out to entertain, but in my experience, rarely succeeds.

Let's assume those criteria are valid requirements (they make sense to me, but I'm not an artist, I just enjoy watching movies/listening to music, etc.)

Here's the problem as I see it: you say he fails at #2 and #3. I was held at attention during the movie. Maybe you were not, maybe most people here were not, but I was. I probably wasn't the only one. Does that mean he failed if he didn't hit 100% success? Similarly, #3 is arguable as well. I felt the CG fights were well done. Perfect, no, but good and enjoyable.

The thing is, you yourself say "in my experience", which I beleive goes to show how up to opinion critiquing art is.

I'm sure that we could come up with some sort of list of what makes something art or not, but I just don't see how there can be an equivocal "good" or "bad" that can be clearly stated as fact. You can say "99% of people thought this movie sucked" and that makes it a pretty strong likelyhood that the movie sucked in the court of popular opinion, but I don't see how you can tell those 1% they're flat out wrong either.

And I've been on the 99% and the 1% so I know the incredulation of hearing a dissenting opinion as the former and being battered, like here, as the 1%. :)

The script was horrible for the most part with just a couple of lollergags for me. Other people were guffawing at the juvenile potty humor the entire time.

They just needed to keep sticking to the Megan Fox shots and it would have been just fine.

DamnYankees: robsul82: HIS FARKING GUN WAS IN MY THROAT! OH GOD!

Doesn't work as well on the page. With his blood racing at 300 beats a minute, that dialogue pops.

I heard that the actor just started ranting and going offscript, but he did the scene so well that even David Fincher - a notorious no-adlibbing hardass - wanted to use it.

DROxINxTHExWIND: URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

They give Scarface 2 stars, so I'm not really interested in what a critic thinks.

They gave it 2 stars becaus it sucks.

/Barely made it through that film.

Jack9: mattharvest: None - count'm, none

By none you mean Ravage? Since most of the robots are nameless or so similar looking you can't tell the difference, you may want to ask Bay if he really intended some of them to be the same or not. You just can't tell, regardless of what you saw.

You know what, you're half-right. Ravage - being a part of Soundwave's collection - can apparently travel to and from Soundwave, so I'll give you that one. All the others are the initial deployment of the protoform.

What's wrong with that?

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: I was merely making a statement regarding what I expected (and what I think most moderately intelligent people would really expect to get from a Transformers sequel directed by Michael Bay) and how I was satisfied with that.

Then just say "this movie was not good but I liked it anyway", and we'd be fine with it.

But see, it was good to me. It was not good to you.

robsul82: I heard that the actor just started ranting and going offscript, but he did the scene so well that even David Fincher - a notorious no-adlibbing hardass - wanted to use it.

Not sure if he ad-libbed it. But its true that he made himself hyperventile before they turned the camera on so he could speak and breathe like that. I wouldn't be surprised if he ad-libbed in that state.

TheKingOfMexico: Did anyone link to this FAQ-style review of the movie yet?

Anyone link to the original review?

Richard in a Box: But see, it was good to me. It was not good to you.

You seem incapable of separating the idea of "good" with "enjoyed by me".

HowAboutNo: All I have to say is, after two Transformers movies, where the hell my Gobots movie at??????

Oh my God you just made me eight again!!

/the next 23 years are gonna suck...

came here for Megan Fox pictures.

/Fark never disappoints.

DamnYankees: robsul82: I heard that the actor just started ranting and going offscript, but he did the scene so well that even David Fincher - a notorious no-adlibbing hardass - wanted to use it.

Not sure if he ad-libbed it. But its true that he made himself hyperventile before they turned the camera on so he could speak and breathe like that. I wouldn't be surprised if he ad-libbed in that state.

I also heard Fincher made Jake Gyllenhaal cry by going for 70+ takes for a mundane scene in Zodiac.

I think Transformers is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesn't afraid of anything.

robsul82: I also heard Fincher made Jake Gyllenhaal cry by going for 70+ takes for a mundane scene in Zodiac.

Hadn't heard that. We he trying to break Gyllenhall? Or he just was too obsessive and didn't realize it?

Kuta: Other people were guffawing at the juvenile potty humor the entire time.

Come on, you didn't laugh at the "tight shirt" crack? Or the crane balls hanging under Devastator?

/Guys humor doesn't evolve much past middle school, come on. :)

Richard in a Box: The thing is, you yourself say "in my experience", which I beleive goes to show how up to opinion critiquing art is.

I'm sure that we could come up with some sort of list of what makes something art or not, but I just don't see how there can be an equivocal "good" or "bad" that can be clearly stated as fact. You can say "99% of people thought this movie sucked" and that makes it a pretty strong likelyhood that the movie sucked in the court of popular opinion, but I don't see how you can tell those 1% they're flat out wrong either.

Wishy washy bullshiat.

If you thought this was an artistically worthy film you are just wrong. Your opinion is wrong. Aesthetics are NOT merely relative. That is sloppy ass philosophy. There is a difference between metaphysical subjectivity and epistemological subjectivity (not to mention inter-subjectivity).

TLDR
MOAR BOMBS NAO!

DamnYankees: robsul82: I also heard Fincher made Jake Gyllenhaal cry by going for 70+ takes for a mundane scene in Zodiac.

Hadn't heard that. We he trying to break Gyllenhall? Or he just was too obsessive and didn't realize it?

Fincher's basically the new Kubrick insofar as demanding a shiatload of takes for everything in the film. Zodiac was his, what, 5th movie, so Gyllenhaal knew what he was getting when he signed on to the film.

aggravatedmonkey: LMFAO:

Jeez you really take that Megan Fox shiat seriously.
Not everyone is going to agree with you on everything, you know that--right? Take, for example, facial hair.

/Now go look at my profile. I have enough pictures in there for you to work with...
//Except I'm leaving work now and probably won't visit this thread anymore.
///Work is Fark time, Home is play time.

robsul82: Fincher's basically the new Kubrick insofar as demanding a shiatload of takes for everything in the film. Zodiac was his, what, 5th movie, so Gyllenhaal knew what he was getting when he signed on to the film.

Yeah, I know Fincher is like that. I just hadn't heard he made Jake cry.

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: But see, it was good to me. It was not good to you.

You seem incapable of separating the idea of "good" with "enjoyed by me".

You seem incapable of separating my idea of good versus your idea of good, and that I don't have to say "I liked it even though it sucked" since I don't think it actually sucked.

robsul82: DamnYankees: robsul82: I also heard Fincher made Jake Gyllenhaal cry by going for 70+ takes for a mundane scene in Zodiac.

Hadn't heard that. We he trying to break Gyllenhall? Or he just was too obsessive and didn't realize it?

Fincher's basically the new Kubrick insofar as demanding a shiatload of takes for everything in the film. Zodiac was his, what, 5th movie, so Gyllenhaal knew what he was getting when he signed on to the film.

In fact, if memory serves, Robert Downey Jr. called working with Fincher for Zodiac to a gulag, but that he'd happily do it again because of how good he is and how good the films he makes are.

I'd love the read a review of this movie done by someone who watched it while tripping balls.

neuracnu: I'm not sure if anyone realized it or not, but Roland Emmerich has released a new trailer for '2012' specifically to address the concerns raised in this article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0

AWESOME.

A Lunatic: TLDR
MOAR BOMBS NAO!

Michael Bay's 3rd alt!

Bill Frist: Richard in a Box: The thing is, you yourself say "in my experience", which I beleive goes to show how up to opinion critiquing art is.

I'm sure that we could come up with some sort of list of what makes something art or not, but I just don't see how there can be an equivocal "good" or "bad" that can be clearly stated as fact. You can say "99% of people thought this movie sucked" and that makes it a pretty strong likelyhood that the movie sucked in the court of popular opinion, but I don't see how you can tell those 1% they're flat out wrong either.

Wishy washy bullshiat.

If you thought this was an artistically worthy film you are just wrong. Your opinion is wrong. Aesthetics are NOT merely relative. That is sloppy ass philosophy. There is a difference between metaphysical subjectivity and epistemological subjectivity (not to mention inter-subjectivity).

OK then, Mr. Expert, tell me why I should not have liked this movie.

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: But see, it was good to me. It was not good to you.

You seem incapable of separating the idea of "good" with "enjoyed by me".

You're saying it was objectively bad, as opposed to just bad to you?

DamnYankees: robsul82: Fincher's basically the new Kubrick insofar as demanding a shiatload of takes for everything in the film. Zodiac was his, what, 5th movie, so Gyllenhaal knew what he was getting when he signed on to the film.

Yeah, I know Fincher is like that. I just hadn't heard he made Jake cry.

I thought he did well in the film. Of course, I also apparently enjoyed Zodiac quite a bit more than most people.

vanhalenfan32:
I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie. It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were.

Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

Richard in a Box: OK then, Mr. Expert, tell me why I should not have liked this movie.

Because it sucked.

Anyway, I truly do totally disagree with your premise that everyone's opinion is equally valid. I think that is a truly lazy idea that is sadly common in modern society.

You can read this if you like though:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

Well, this is false, empirically speaking. The fact that humans tend to gravitate towards certain things tell you there is something measurable. An overhwhelmingly large number of straight men will tell you that Catherine Zeta Jones is more attractive than Barbara Bush. If there was really nothing objective going on there, we would not expect that result - it would be random. Rather, we can sort of build up a profile of characteristics which correlate with "beauty". Then you test your subject against those characteristics.

You can do this with movies, art, music - anything. It just takes effort. Luckily, people study this shiat, and there are objective resaons why The Godfather is a *better* film than Troll 2.

I'm not so sure about this line of logic. In your first example, you're conflating "sexual attractiveness", an empirical statistic that can be correlated to several discrete factors (i.e. hip-to-waist ratio, body symmetry, range of motion, etc), with "beauty", a completely subjective value. There are people who find others with very few values of sexual attractiveness to be completely beautiful, for reasons that are unquantifiable.

Likewise with the other subjects. Most people enjoy music that matches certain common mathematical patterns that correlate with the wavelengths and frequencies of particular soundwaves, known as consonance. Hell, major studios run songs through analyzers with these equations plugged in to determine if a song is going to sell or not. However, there are those who find music that completely violates these rules to be quite beautiful in and of themselves.

With art, some people just like an accurate, pretty picture of something that exists in nature or society. Others like artforms that evoke ideas and states of mind. Others still like art that just exists for its own sake, and without any meaning attached to it. None of these are more "right" or "wrong" in what they find to be beautiful.

Finally, with movies - I say I thought Scarface was not a "good" movie and GoodFellas was, because they are by my personal standards, generally involving plot, characterization, script and theme. I made the assertion because I enjoy lively debate, and planned on learning something from the conversation (as I generally do with DROxINxTHExWIND). And yet, there will still be many people who think Scarface is the superior movie, based on other factors such as an identification with the themes of the movie, or a fascination with Tony Montana, either through Pacino's acting or the characterization. Both are equally subjective valuations based on personal preferences. Just because I think one way doesn't make that way of thinking right.

If you claim that there is such thing as objective beauty, then it only logically follows that the conclusion will be argumentum ad populam. Frankly, a world where Thomas Kinkade and country music are the objective standards of beauty would be a suffocating one, in my estimation.

I generally agree with Ebert's reviews, so I won't be seeing Transformers 2. I didn't see the first one, either, but I'm not one who enjoys flashy fantasy action movies that depend on smash-em-up, blow-em-up battle scenes to the exclusion of character depth and a compelling plot. I'm generally of the belief that such junk is best suited to children or viewers who haven't got the attention span to appreciate a truly good 2 hour movie that doesn't rely on an explosion every 10 minutes to keep you interested.

mattharvest: DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: But see, it was good to me. It was not good to you.

You seem incapable of separating the idea of "good" with "enjoyed by me".

You're saying it was objectively bad, as opposed to just bad to you?

No, he (and others) are saying that according to some mystical standard of what makes a good or bad film, it doesn't live up to those and everyone should find it bad since there are right and wrong opinions.

mattharvest: You're saying it was objectively bad, as opposed to just bad to you?

I haven't seen it. But I would say that about many things.

Richard in a Box: You seem incapable of separating my idea of good versus your idea of good, and that I don't have to say "I liked it even though it sucked" since I don't think it actually sucked.

Can you tell me something you think is not good but you also liked? Then we can figure out how that thing is different from TF2.

So for everyone demonstrating that this movie met their expectations with a checklist of things it had in it, and saying you didn't need anything else, what would it have taken to be a bad movie? If it had consisted of nothing more than two robots punching each other in front of a background of exploding cars, with a few cuts to Megan Fox licking a lollipop, would you have been satisfied giving up $10 and 2.5 hours for that?

bigmattress: vanhalenfan32:
I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie. It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were.

Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

Well, the way you're using the term seems obsessed with the medium, and would demand that I ask what you think something shot 100% digital should be called?

Is it a film if it's just copied onto film? Does it stop being a film if it's copied off film to purely digital formats before distribution?

DamnYankees: You seem incapable of separating the idea of "good" with "enjoyed by me".

LOL ... said the guy who never got over the ending to BSG.

Even Shia LaBeouf essentially admitted the movie was senseless garbage, on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. When Conan asked him to set up the clip they were about to show, Shia said, "A whole lotta bang-bang, I imagine."

mattharvest: So, you went into the movie with the preconceived notion that the core concept of the movie was silly and something you disliked? Then you were pissed off at it? Now, you're going to rent the sequel?
Sounds like you're either a glutton for punishment or you're looking to complain.

I went for the effects and the action. It wasn't the notion that transformers are robots that turn into shiat that annoyed me about the first movie. It was just too cutesy. I mean the humans, the script. Not the farking giant robots.

I'll rent the second because I like effects. But yeah I will probably still biatch afterwards about how lame the movie was/is. That's how I roll.

And yeah, Megan Fox isn't all that amazing. I would, of course, hit it repeatedly and with gusto.

Sgt Otter: The FAQ doesn't even cover the massive continuity error of having a complete Devastator fighting one battle, while miles away, some of the individual robots who make up his body parts are fighting as themselves at another battle miles away.

Speaking of continuity errors...

But seriously, good catch. I think I noticed it too, then shrugged it off as maybe there were other construction 'bots someplace else.

Bill Frist: Anyway, I truly do totally disagree with your premise that everyone's opinion is equally valid. I think that is a truly lazy idea that is sadly common in modern society.

Well yeah, of course not everyone's opinion is equally valid with all others; however, enjoyment of something isn't the same as an opinion, actually.

For example, I might enjoy a meal but not have any opinion (other than to say "it was good" as pure synonym with "I enjoyed eating it").

Now, obviously, some foods are "better" than others in that they're crafted more expertly, contain more flavorful ingredients, etc. but that doesn't diminish the enjoyment of lesser foods, right? Just because you love a filet mignon doesn't mean someone else can't enjoy - honestly and viscerally - a McDonald's burger, right? Or do you think such a person actually doesn't know what "enjoy" means?

zedster: I'm still upset that no one threw a hissy-fit that they ran from Egypt to Jordan without passing thru another country

Or that Davis-Monthan AFB was somehow in the Smithsonian's backyard.

/Assuming that that is indeed AMARG, which is at Davis-Monthan.

bigmattress: vanhalenfan32:
I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie. It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were.

Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

The Dick Van Dyke show was not a film

icanhazstapler: Sgt Otter: The FAQ doesn't even cover the massive continuity error of having a complete Devastator fighting one battle, while miles away, some of the individual robots who make up his body parts are fighting as themselves at another battle miles away.

Speaking of continuity errors...

But seriously, good catch. I think I noticed it too, then shrugged it off as maybe there were other construction 'bots someplace else.

Yeah that was baffling.

SonOfSpam: Even Shia LaBeouf essentially admitted the movie was senseless garbage, on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. When Conan asked him to set up the clip they were about to show, Shia said, "A whole lotta bang-bang, I imagine."

That's the same thing porn actress Shia LeButt said about her clip.

Goddamn, I fear for the future of this country.
There are a lot of stupid people out there.

Look, if you like crappy movies, there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like. But why knock Ebert? The guy uses a different set of standards to rate movies than someone who would enjoy Transformers 2.

So, you like movies with giant robots that transform into cars and planes and such. You like movies with action and explosions and hot chicks. So what? Why do you care, then, what Ebert thinks? Why even pay attention to it?

i can understand all the hate towards transformers, i've never seen the two movies, but i was a huge fan of the cartoon and the original animated movie. which is the reason why i haven't gone to see these two films. that being said, if you think these movies are awful, wait until the voltron movie comes out.

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: In your first example, you're conflating "sexual attractiveness", an empirical statistic that can be correlated to several discrete factors (i.e. hip-to-waist ratio, body symmetry, range of motion, etc), with "beauty", a completely subjective value. There are people who find others with very few values of sexual attractiveness to be completely beautiful, for reasons that are unquantifiable.

I was just using "sexual attractiveness" as an analogy. I didn't intend to conflate them. But take something which is more "beautiful" - Michaelangelo's La Pieta. Now compare that to my 3rd grade art project. It's the same basic principle. There are certain things which are ingrained in being human which make La Pieta more "beautiful" than my garbage.

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: If you claim that there is such thing as objective beauty, then it only logically follows that the conclusion will be argumentum ad populam. Frankly, a world where Thomas Kinkade and country music are the objective standards of beauty would be a suffocating one, in my estimation.

I don't know what the phrase "objective beauty" could possibly mean. Beauty is a property which emerges as the result of the interaction between a sentient observer and its object of observation. It has no other existence other than that. And when all sentient observers share common traits, as humans do, you now have 2 objective things to work between - the non-changing objective of the observation, and the unversial traits of the shared observer. I fail to see why we can't tease a solid standard of beauty out of that, any less than we can tease out a solid standard of language.

DamnYankees: I was just using "sexual attractiveness" as an analogy. I didn't intend to conflate them. But take something which is more "beautiful" - Michaelangelo's La Pieta. Now compare that to my 3rd grade art project. It's the same basic principle. There are certain things which are ingrained in being human which make La Pieta more "beautiful" than my garbage.

Are there? What are they?

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: With art, some people just like an accurate, pretty picture of something that exists in nature or society. Others like artforms that evoke ideas and states of mind. Others still like art that just exists for its own sake, and without any meaning attached to it. None of these are more "right" or "wrong" in what they find to be beautiful.

They may not be wrong in what they find beautiful, but artistic merit is not judged on what one individual finds beautiful. That would be an insane standard.

Let's take an extreme example here.

Take a person who has studied the history of painting in depth. Then take a person who lived in under a rock their whole life and never saw a painting until today.

Are these two people equally qualified to discuss the artistic merit of a painting I show them?

To me, that idea is absurd. the latter person has no knowledge of the art world or art history and thus has no grounds to discuss technique, originality, influence, cultural resonance or anything else.... they can only relate their pure subjective experience.

Is that really all their is to art?

a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

Dr_Gats: can somebody else confirm for me, I could have sworn that the motorcycle transformer was a singular entity, and a decepticon when in the cartoon, although still "female". Am I mistaken?

Yes. And no. Only time I remember seeing that whore (arcee, fyi) was in the movie. The first movie. Not that movie, the other one. Orson Welles' last role. She was also not a motorcycle, but some sort of cybertronian car. And she was an autobot.
Technically, there was only one arcee, but she had two partners in this one for some no reason.

Bill Frist: Are these two people equally qualified to discuss the artistic merit of a painting I show them?

What does artistic merit mean?

Not trolling or anything; I'm just trying to suggest that the term "artistic merit" is a social construct, one which has been shown to not necessarily cross cultural lines in any meaningful way (especially with regards to technique, content, media, etc.).

So, how do you define artistic merit in order to use it as a measurement?

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: If you claim that there is such thing as objective beauty, then it only logically follows that the conclusion will be argumentum ad populam. Frankly, a world where Thomas Kinkade and country music are the objective standards of beauty would be a suffocating one, in my estimation.

Do not agree with either of your ideas here.

It is neither true that
a) if objective beauty exists it is based entirely on inter-subjectivity (ad populam). It is certainly possible, as Plato argued, that an objective beauty exists outside of our sujbecitve or inter-subjective experiences, even if we can not fully know it.

or

b) that even in the case of inter-subjectivity, some kind of democratic vote is what decides what is good. Why wouldn't knowledge and experience factor in?

Megan Fox is just the new "it" girl. Her time will pass.

That being said, I'd hit it like a pile driver. Repeatedly. Freaky looking thumbs can be covered with gloves.

wyrlss: Dr_Gats: can somebody else confirm for me, I could have sworn that the motorcycle transformer was a singular entity, and a decepticon when in the cartoon, although still "female". Am I mistaken?

Yes. And no. Only time I remember seeing that whore (arcee, fyi) was in the movie. The first movie. Not that movie, the other one. Orson Welles' last role. She was also not a motorcycle, but some sort of cybertronian car. And she was an autobot.
Technically, there was only one arcee, but she had two partners in this one for some no reason.

It was Arcee and the Twins in the latest movie, if I'm not mistaken. They were basically disposable.

Arcee, in a bizarrely disturbing concept, had her comic origins in an experiment to introduce gender to the Transformers, which led to a murderous rage.

Bill Frist: AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: With art, some people just like an accurate, pretty picture of something that exists in nature or society. Others like artforms that evoke ideas and states of mind. Others still like art that just exists for its own sake, and without any meaning attached to it. None of these are more "right" or "wrong" in what they find to be beautiful.

They may not be wrong in what they find beautiful, but artistic merit is not judged on what one individual finds beautiful. That would be an insane standard.

Let's take an extreme example here.

Take a person who has studied the history of painting in depth. Then take a person who lived in under a rock their whole life and never saw a painting until today.

Are these two people equally qualified to discuss the artistic merit of a painting I show them?

To me, that idea is absurd. the latter person has no knowledge of the art world or art history and thus has no grounds to discuss technique, originality, influence, cultural resonance or anything else.... they can only relate their pure subjective experience.

Is that really all their is to art?

a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

The Red Sox are a better team than the Yankees, not even just record. Their farm system is better, where as the Yankees is weak. They have a cohesive TEAM as opposed to a collection of all-stars. Therefore it is retarded to like the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

mattharvest: Not trolling or anything; I'm just trying to suggest that the term "artistic merit" is a social construct, one which has been shown to not necessarily cross cultural lines in any meaningful way (especially with regards to technique, content, media, etc.).

Yet surely one person's wholly subjective experience with no broader context is even LESS likely to cross cultural lines, no?

Tooting my own horn a bit here, but it's relevant. Farking critics..
Mah blog (new window)

Pxtl: Considering the suck that Bay has at anything but pure action, this is the movie Bay should make:



/hotlinked

...

I would go see "River Tam Beats Up Everyone."

/Twice.

Telos: ObscureNameHere: Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

Sorry if I'm capable of noticing when someone writes an outright lie when he's trying to make a movie look bad.

Ooh, or how about let's explain the entire decepticon plan ourselves in 2 sentences and THEN claim the movie never explained it? Even though you just did, based on watching the movie.

Yeah.

The real thing is, the actual problems he noticed were made less noticeable in his blog by the crap he made up. when you've read 10 misinterpretations/lies/retarded statements the 2 or 3 true ones just kind of fade away...

/liked the movie
//it was FUN
///blog article was stupid.

waaaah, waaaah, someone made fun of my precious movie, waaaaahhh!

Bill Frist: Why wouldn't knowledge and experience factor in?

Arguably, that which requires specialized knowledge to access might not be "art", but rather something else entirely.

I might argue that the only thing that is actually "art" is that which can be shared by everyone.

/I'm not arguing that at the moment, but you seem to discount it innapropriately

SonOfSpam: Even Shia LaBeouf essentially admitted the movie was senseless garbage, on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. When Conan asked him to set up the clip they were about to show, Shia said, "A whole lotta bang-bang, I imagine."

Oh, God, after the nuclear-level stupid expressed by Michael Bay after Megan Fox admitted the movie was awful, get ready for even more bile by the man who gave us The Next Tom Hanks^TM!

aggravatedmonkey

I'm starting to think you're this guy

mattharvest: Not trolling or anything; I'm just trying to suggest that the term "artistic merit" is a social construct, one which has been shown to not necessarily cross cultural lines in any meaningful way (especially with regards to technique, content, media, etc.).

I don't understand why "social construct" has to preclude objectivity. The English language is a social construct, but "bachelor" objectively and 100% means "guy who isn't married".

vanhalenfan32: The Red Sox are a better team than the Yankees, not even just record. Their farm system is better, where as the Yankees is weak. They have a cohesive TEAM as opposed to a collection of all-stars. Therefore it is retarded to like the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

I know you are trying to troll me here, but the argument doesn't make much sense because you don't like a team based purely on their record.

A better analogy might be that even if we can't 100% objectively prove which team in basebaell is the best right now (yanks? sox? dodgers?) as the records a lone can't settle this.... nevertheless ONE of those teams must truly be the best and for someone to argue that the Oriels are actually the best team because they subjectively experience them as the best team would be pretty silly.

Bill Frist: mattharvest: Not trolling or anything; I'm just trying to suggest that the term "artistic merit" is a social construct, one which has been shown to not necessarily cross cultural lines in any meaningful way (especially with regards to technique, content, media, etc.).

Yet surely one person's wholly subjective experience with no broader context is even LESS likely to cross cultural lines, no?

Not necessarily. It perhaps might reflect something more universally human - something intrinsic to the experience of growing, making friends, forming relationships, etc. - by virtue of not being tainted by "art"-specific education.

Alternately, it might reflect something more honest, less encumbered by artistic "training".

mattharvest: bigmattress: vanhalenfan32:
Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

Well, the way you're using the term seems obsessed with the medium, and would demand that I ask what you think something shot 100% digital should be called?

Is it a film if it's just copied onto film? Does it stop being a film if it's copied off film to purely digital formats before distribution?

ANYTHING shot on film is a film. Dick Van Dyke, if it was filmed, was a film. Just because it was broadcast later doesn't mean it wasn't originally shot on film.

And I'd say anything shot 100% digitally would not be a film, so you got me there. But Dundee and likewise, crap as they may be, are films.

Original recording techniques is what matters there, just because it is later transferred to DVD doesn't mean it stops being a film. It just becomes a digital copy of a film.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say "That's just a movie, but THIS IS A FILM". It makes no sense if they were both shot on film.

Bill Frist: a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

Ebert isn't the only person with this qualification, though. The fact that Transformers doesn't have a 0% T-meter proves that it at least has a little artistic merit in the eyes of some critics, if not the majority of them.

I refuse to give money to see a michael bay movie....he must stop

mattharvest: Yet surely one person's wholly subjective experience with no broader context is even LESS likely to cross cultural lines, no?

Not necessarily. It perhaps might reflect something more universally human - something intrinsic to the experience of growing, making friends, forming relationships, etc. - by virtue of not being tainted by "art"-specific education.

Alternately, it might reflect something more honest, less encumbered by artistic "training".

Don't make this about academia or "training."

One can learn plenty about art through one's own instruction. THis is not about university degrees.

Bill Frist: Richard in a Box: OK then, Mr. Expert, tell me why I should not have liked this movie.

Because it sucked.

Anyway, I truly do totally disagree with your premise that everyone's opinion is equally valid. I think that is a truly lazy idea that is sadly common in modern society.

You can read this if you like though:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

It was an absolutely horrible movie I had to watch until the end. Every single horrible minute of it. From the Air-Space museum leading directly into the desert and the NJ air base with convenient mountains like it was actually 29 Palms or something like that. And then the friggin twins "We can't read." Seriously. For all these reason and thousands more it was hideous.

/up there with "Mission to Mars"
//7-10 base pairs = the perfect woman...wtf!!!!
///sorry just adding to why this movie was horrible

(1) This movie was terrible. To demonstrate how terrible: i saw one of the random one-off episodes of one of the newer transformers cartoons on tv the other day, some construction equipment accidentally got turned into robots and went around getting ironhide drunk and catcalling at sports cars and generally annoying everyone... i turned it off after like 10 minutes so I don't know if there was a plot. It was still a better movie than transformers 2.

(2) I don't understand the thing FARK has for Megan Fox. Or rather, I do (any moderately attractive actress associated with a science fiction piece gets the same treatment) but i don't really sympathize -- it's a correlative observation, not a causative one.

(3) I still watched the movie, knowing it would suck horribly, and while it hardly exceeded my expectations it didn't go below them either, so I didn't really have a bad time. I'd give it a "meh" and a half.

reading this thread is like watching a collecting bunch of high strung fanboys expecting a Schindler's List life changing experience and then spewing enough sand out of their balloon knots to rival Krakatoa

BergZ: I thought it was a bit too political in nature because there was one point where (and I could have misheard it) but I believe they mentioned President Obama by name (instead of just saying "the President"). At one point in the movie the President's representative says that his administration is "considering all possible options" including turning Sam over to the Decepticons... I thought that was a positively despicable misrepresentation of Obama's position WRT the War on Terror.

Interesting. I overlooked that during the movie, but you are right. Although, in fairness, I think we were meant to understand that the pencil neck power mad buerocrat was overstepping his authority.

Also the movie sucked.

Bill Frist: A better analogy might be that even if we can't 100% objectively prove which team in basebaell is the best right now (yanks? sox? dodgers?) as the records a lone can't settle this.... nevertheless ONE of those teams must truly be the best and for someone to argue that the Oriels are actually the best team because they subjectively experience them as the best team would be pretty silly.

A good analogy. The question for "best" then is "best at what?" In baseball, the best team is pretty simply the one who wins the most games - that's what they are trying to do. Some statisticians might want to break that down and say "the best team is that which plays in a way where they are expected to win the most games". That's just refining.

So the question then becomes for movies, what are they "intending" to do, and are they thus the best at it. And I can't imagine any measurement where Michael Bay can be said to "succeed" at any intention other than making money and perhaps demanding high quality CGI.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: Not trolling or anything; I'm just trying to suggest that the term "artistic merit" is a social construct, one which has been shown to not necessarily cross cultural lines in any meaningful way (especially with regards to technique, content, media, etc.).

I don't understand why "social construct" has to preclude objectivity. The English language is a social construct, but "bachelor" objectively and 100% means "guy who isn't married".

Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context. "2+2=4" is true (in Base-10) because there is no conceptual way for it to be false (other than to redefine terms). On the other hand, there is no objective definition for "art", "good", or "bad" the way there is an objective definition for "2", "+", "4" and "=".

My point is that there is definitely no universally accepted definition of "art", much less "good" or "bad" as applied to art, in any language in the history of mankind. Thus, any such definition will have to be - at best - limited in time and space.

mattharvest: Bill Frist: Why wouldn't knowledge and experience factor in?

Arguably, that which requires specialized knowledge to access might not be "art", but rather something else entirely.

I might argue that the only thing that is actually "art" is that which can be shared by everyone.

/I'm not arguing that at the moment, but you seem to discount it innapropriately

While I DO discount it, you seem to have misunderstood me. I did not mean that you NEED specialized knowledge to like a piece (say, some art film or something). What I meant was something a little more simple.

Take Guy A who has watched 10 random films in his life. Then guy b has watched 10,000 films.

Surely guy b is going to have a better time talking about what films are the best (or important, influential, etc.) thatn guy a... guy a just doesnt' have the knowledge to talk about these things.

Likewise Guy A will a weaker framework to judge his 11th movie, Transformers 2, than Guy B.

Pirate Bay has some good telesyncs up for anyone who doesn't want to waste their money at the theater.

mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

Wrong.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

tarvuz: This is the first movie I ever walked out on in my life. It made the first transformers look like Citizen Kane.

First movie I ever walked out of was Showgirls. Not to be ripped off, I went to the next theater over and saw The Usual Suspects.

Best upgrade ever.

bigmattress: mattharvest: bigmattress: vanhalenfan32:
Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

Well, the way you're using the term seems obsessed with the medium, and would demand that I ask what you think something shot 100% digital should be called?

Is it a film if it's just copied onto film? Does it stop being a film if it's copied off film to purely digital formats before distribution?

ANYTHING shot on film is a film. Dick Van Dyke, if it was filmed, was a film. Just because it was broadcast later doesn't mean it wasn't originally shot on film.

And I'd say anything shot 100% digitally would not be a film, so you got me there. But Dundee and likewise, crap as they may be, are films.

Original recording techniques is what matters there, just because it is later transferred to DVD doesn't mean it stops being a film. It just becomes a digital copy of a film.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say "That's just a movie, but THIS IS A FILM". It makes no sense if they were both shot on film.

Frankly, you're using the term in a way that no longer conforms to English as a language.

The English language as spoken in the US now has connotations for the words "movie, film, flick" etc. that diverge. While you may not like that the connotations disagree with the literal meaning of the words, you're kinda out of luck given that the rest of the culture disagrees by-and-large.

TribeFan695: Bill Frist: a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

Ebert isn't the only person with this qualification, though. The fact that Transformers doesn't have a 0% T-meter proves that it at least has a little artistic merit in the eyes of some critics, if not the majority of them.

They're called "quote whores."

Bill Frist: vanhalenfan32: The Red Sox are a better team than the Yankees, not even just record. Their farm system is better, where as the Yankees is weak. They have a cohesive TEAM as opposed to a collection of all-stars. Therefore it is retarded to like the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

I know you are trying to troll me here, but the argument doesn't make much sense because you don't like a team based purely on their record.

A better analogy might be that even if we can't 100% objectively prove which team in basebaell is the best right now (yanks? sox? dodgers?) as the records a lone can't settle this.... nevertheless ONE of those teams must truly be the best and for someone to argue that the Oriels are actually the best team because they subjectively experience them as the best team would be pretty silly.

yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers. I don't think the counter argument from anyone (with a brain) was ever that Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009, just people saying they liked it despite what opposing critics/viewers thought. Different strokes for different folks.

Bill Frist:
Let's take an extreme example here.

Take a person who has studied the history of painting in depth. Then take a person who lived in under a rock their whole life and never saw a painting until today.

Are these two people equally qualified to discuss the artistic merit of a painting I show them?

To me, that idea is absurd. the latter person has no knowledge of the art world or art history and thus has no grounds to discuss technique, originality, influence, cultural resonance or anything else.... they can only relate their pure subjective experience.

Is that really all their is to art?

a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

The person more knowledgeable about the subject might have more insight to offer and more experience to compare and contrast the art with other work, but it doesn't mean that "rock person"'s opinion about the art piece is wrong.

If rock person said "I like this painting because it's colorful" and "art expert" said "This painting is very poor because of mismatched use of color" (or whatever), does that make rock person wrong? No. Rock person is correct because they do actually like it, and art expert is ALSO correct because they've seen other paintings and they find this one does not meet the technical criteria they were looking for (or whatever) and it's poor artwork. Perhaps in this regard, a neutral bystander would be more inclined to agree with the art expert based on their experience, but they may like the colors the way they are and simply enjoy the painting anyway.

Again, I ask, how is the rock person wrong?

vanhalenfan32: yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers.

Of course they wouldn't, but what dose that have to do with anything?

Michael Bay's mom isn't "wrong" to root for Transformers 2 to have a big box office either. I don't see how that relates to the question of the merit of the film (or the objective quality of a baseball team)

Still waiting for the movie



Yeah, I'm old.

mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

Bill Frist: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

I don't agree with the reasoning in that article. If you understand it - and I'm assuming you must, since you're linking it after all - you can make the arguments yourself here.

However, some specific complaints:

The second paragraph begins with a strawman, and it spends a lot of time attacking this strawman. The third paragraph does the same thing.

Relatedly, I cannot seem to even find rankings for that school to determine if it's of sufficient quality that I can trust its professors. I'm not saying it lacks such quality yet, but I cannot find anything to justify trusting it yet. It appears to be a community college?

Richard in a Box: The person more knowledgeable about the subject might have more insight to offer and more experience to compare and contrast the art with other work, but it doesn't mean that "rock person"'s opinion about the art piece is wrong.

Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Did you read this link? I honestly think it is a nice summary:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

Blink: As a child, I was a complete Transformers fanatic. I enjoyed Transformers 2. Having said that, the move was almost completely awful. "almost" because the only thing you could enjoy was the action -- which was about 25% of the movie.

/plot made NO SENSE
//if there was a plot.

FTFY

Most of the running time for this movie was spent on pointless dialogue. Had it been 95%, or hell, even if it had been 65% action, I would have loved it.

Only Michael Bay can make two Transformers movies where the focus is on the humans, instead of the robots.

robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

Bill Frist: vanhalenfan32: yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers.

Of course they wouldn't, but what dose that have to do with anything?

Michael Bay's mom isn't "wrong" to root for Transformers 2 to have a big box office either. I don't see how that relates to the question of the merit of the film (or the objective quality of a baseball team)

indeed you would not sir. indeed you would not.

robsul82: 2) It really seems like Roland Emmerich is saying "FARK MICHAEL BAY! WHO'S GOT THE DESTRUCTION? I GOT THE DESTRUCTION, BABY!" with every frame of that film.

How has Roland Emerich made a career out of destroying the White House and New York and not ended up on the Terror Watch List?

mattharvest: Relatedly, I cannot seem to even find rankings for that school to determine if it's of sufficient quality that I can trust its professors. I'm not saying it lacks such quality yet, but I cannot find anything to justify trusting it yet. It appears to be a community college?

I don't know anything about the college or the author, just something I foudn online.

Regardless, the paper is not making any original claims, just describing what philosophers think.

Most people have this mistaken notion that philosophers have agreed that "woah man, like, everything is relative" when in reality that is a minority position.

mattharvest:
Frankly, you're using the term in a way that no longer conforms to English as a language.

The English language as spoken in the US now has connotations for the words "movie, film, flick" etc. that diverge. While you may not like that the connotations disagree with the literal meaning of the words, you're kinda out of luck given that the rest of the culture disagrees by-and-large.

You may be right, but since this is what I do as a profession, I better stick to the technical terms lest I look like an uneducated moran to my peers.

As Ebert said..."We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle."

Just because the general populace has accepted one term over another doesn't make it right.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

I've never, once, encountered the definition of objective you're operating on. The idea that a "decision" needs to be made is baffling, to say the least, since it introduces a whole host of extraneous topics to the discussion.

I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.