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