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.

Yeah, it is.

The details are nice, but that's all they are - component parts of the whole, which seeks to create an aesthetic effect upon the viewer. The more in-depth analysis may hold interest for certain people, but that doesn't particularly make their style of thinking any "better" except among people who consider that type of appreciation to be superior. Now, one may counterargue that why is it that these sorts of people recognize long-lasting works of art - of course, these sorts of people are the only ones who really talk about any works of art over a period of time. To a lay person, what is it about the Mona Lisa that's significant, other than the creepy moving eye thing?

How can you qualify who has the proper authority to judge the merit of the film, if said merit isn't objective and quantifiable? In the end, aren't we just judging it according to a particular group's subjective preferences?

You people who don't like Transformers 2 just don't know how to get in touch with your inner retarded child!

/would not watch the movie if you paid me.

(Oh? There's a hot chick in it? Um... they're on the Internet, and they're naked. Why should I suffer through the stupidity of giant fighting robots to see a chick with clothes on?)

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

Best. Rant. EVAR!

Bill Frist: 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?

a) I really wish they would stop teaching Plato with such high regard. There is nothing functional about his view of the universe. It's nice and pleasant, but makes nothing approaching a prediction. If you want to argue that objective beauty exists outside the perceivable universe, then you're just making the same argument as those who say that something is beautiful "because God made it that way"

b) Knowledge and experience are generally correlated with practical activity, and not something purely subjective. A knowledgeable and experienced engineer can design a good bridge, but it's not because he's knowledgeable and experienced that the bridge is good, nor is it because other knowledgeable and experienced engineers say it's good. The bridge is good because it works.

Art, on the other hand, has no objective determination of whether or not something works. It depends completely on the audience. Let's face it, art historians and critics got that way because they're very good at creating a cohesive narrative behind art in general - while these things are useful for telling us about a history of a society, they say nothing about the art itself. The experience is still purely subjective.

Therefore, if you want to make any sort of blanket statement about what art is good, it lends itself to the democratic principle. Otherwise, what's the objective standard?

Despite what critics might say, film has never been strong as an art form - it's simply too expensive and requires too many people to have their fingers in the pie. Even movies that were hailed by critics upon release rarely age well - it simply isn't that type of medium.

If you want art, go to a museum or find yourself a good book - even critically acclaimed movies are rarely more than well packaged schmaltz.

/rosebud

This is a wonderfully entertaining thread, all about a movie I don't plan to see.

*waves to Mr. Ebert, who is undoubtedly perusing this thread with a smile*

/i love fark so much

Come on, let's be honest here: the ONLY reason RE didn't like was it took a shot at Obama.

I know it.

You know it.

The only person who doesn't know it is RE because his politics blinds him to true entertainment.

DamnYankees: ObeliskToucher: TemperedEdge: And you Megan Fox hounds (heh) can all STUF. Yeah, she's hot, but she's the chick Hayden Christensen

Bless you for expressing my feelings about Megan Fox in words...

I don't think that's fair, though. Megan Fox is doing what she's supposed to do. Hayden Christiansan had to play freaking Darth Vader. This comparison would only be fair if Megan Fox had played the young Eileen Wournos or something. The big reason Christenson was so bad is that he wasn't just bad, but he needed to be better than good to justify his being cast in that role. Fox is perfectly cast.

I disagree, and here's why...

I had the opportunity to watch a dumb little T&A movie the other day called Gwendoline (aka, "The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of the Yik-Yak", IMDB (new window)). Tawny Kitaen plays innocent, "looking for my daddy" Gwendoline at the very acme of her good looks, and spends a lot of her time in the movie running around without much clothing. Her trusty sidekick, Beth, is played by French actress Zabou Breitman as a cute little brunette with much less rack space than Tawny. Beth, like Tawny, has numerous clothing malfunctions throughout the movie.

This movie has no pretense of being anything other than an opportunity to film Tawny's breasts in various exotic locations. The ladies are there as eye candy and could easily have phoned-in their parts as an opportunity to take a long paid vacation in Thailand, Morocco, and Paris.

What I noticed, however, is that Zabou effectively steals the movie out from under Tawny's perky not-so-little breasts. In scene after scene, she does *something* (a pose, some little movement, a line reading, or just a quick look with the eyes) that totally draws the viewer's attention from the so-called star of the movie. Every. Single. Scene.

What's the difference? Acting. Zabou Breitman was already on her ninth film (out of nearly 70) and already had the chops to knock every other actor on the set into the next county. Tawny Kitaen, fresh from modeling and some music videos, never had a chance...

If Hayden Christensen had the chops, he could have used them in the Star Wars movies and told George to shut up and let him act when Lucas told him "play this next scene like you're a whiny biatch". If Megan Fox had the chops, she could stand out like a nova in even a Michael Bay abortion like Zabou did in her little skin flick.

But neither of them did, or does...

assistant regional manager: This is a wonderfully entertaining thread, all about a movie I don't plan to see.

*waves to Mr. Ebert, who is undoubtedly perusing this thread with a smile*

/i love fark so much

I think he's too busy gaying up the athiest sub-reddit.

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: Bill Frist: 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
....[snippy]
It depends completely on the audience. Let's face it, art historians and critics got that way because they're very good at creating a cohesive narrative behind art in general - while these things are useful for telling us about a history of a society, they say nothing about the art itself. The experience is still purely subjective.

Therefore, if you want to make any sort of blanket statement about what art is good, it lends itself to the democratic principle. Otherwise, what's the objective standard?

This.

moar! philosophy fights on fark ftw! no really, I'm having great fun reading all this, and if you want to see why art is subjective, please reference "Dadaism".

/"It's not art, it's Dada." (pretty sure that was my sophomore year academic decathlon team slogan, or close to it anyways. Funny how it fits so well with the fark slogan.)

wyrlss, i see your Optimus and raise you:



Peace through tyranny.

I don't know about you, but I went into the theater to see giant robots smashing each other... Guess what I saw?

Dr_Gats: AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: Bill Frist: 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
....[snippy]
It depends completely on the audience. Let's face it, art historians and critics got that way because they're very good at creating a cohesive narrative behind art in general - while these things are useful for telling us about a history of a society, they say nothing about the art itself. The experience is still purely subjective.

Therefore, if you want to make any sort of blanket statement about what art is good, it lends itself to the democratic principle. Otherwise, what's the objective standard?

This.

moar! philosophy fights on fark ftw! no really, I'm having great fun reading all this, and if you want to see why art is subjective, please reference "Dadaism".

/"It's not art, it's Dada." (pretty sure that was my sophomore year academic decathlon team slogan, or close to it anyways. Funny how it fits so well with the fark slogan.)

As Stan Lee said "every superhero, no matter how dumb, is someone's favorite."

larrimo: I don't know about you, but I went into the theater to see giant robots smashing each other... Guess what I saw?

A crappy movie?

This thread is quite epic.

For reference, there are actual objective standards in the technical sense to what makes a good film. Those standards do not mean that you should like or not like a film, but they are objective.

1: ie: Continuity. Is there scene-by-scene and shot-by-shot cohesion in the film. The answer for TF1 is "Sometimes." The answer for TF2 is resolutely "no." This is the factor in which the issues with the instant cross-country flights, walking from the Museum to the desert, and robots in two places at once cause the failure of the film, objectively, in the technical sense.

2: Acting. This rubric is mostly objective, with some subjectivity thrown in and a healthy dose of appeal to sensibility. I don't think it bears explanation. The only successful roles acted in the film seem to be those of the bots and Turturro, regardless of thong.

3: Lighting and angle: Were the characters visible and discernible when they needed to be? The answer is absolutely a negative in this sense. A lot of the scenes were an utter mishmash. That's not to say that the characters were always indiscernible but they were definitely hard to pick out when it was important.

There are others, but I wanted to give examples. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you should like the movie. However, if you are calling this movie good in a technical sense, you are flat-wrong. Period.

guvnor: "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..."

Best read in the voice in Kevin Murphy.

Patterson: larrimo: I don't know about you, but I went into the theater to see giant robots smashing each other... Guess what I saw?

A crappy movie?

Jeez, did you even try?

I'll give you one more shot.

Personally, I wanted to hate the movie. I can't hate it as much as I wanted, though. It was many times more enjoyable than the first. I laughed at the jokes- which is something that didn't happen at all in the original. It made no sense, but it had some soul to it that the first one lacked. In the end, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Even I'll point at some of the nonsense regurgitated by the fanboys. Apparently they forget their roots. Most allll of that shiat existed at some point in the canon. Old robots had beards, dude. And they talked like grumpy old broken down men. It made no damn sense in the original, either.

Now, I still hate many things about the movie. With a passion. The robot designs being one of them. The garbled mass of moving parts are unrecognizable in most scenes, especially when flailing together. Because super-advanced space robits all wrestle instead of using like... ranged weapons.

Would it really have been that hard to modernize the look without completely distorting them till they resemble wads of animated garbage? They'd be great as Junkions! Not so much as the characters they were supposed to be.

When just about every piece of fan-art released has a better overall design than the 100-million dollar studio production, I think I should retain the right to remain at least a bit miffed about it.




vs.

Leishu: This thread is quite epic.

For reference, there are actual objective standards in the technical sense to what makes a good film. Those standards do not mean that you should like or not like a film, but they are objective.

1: ie: Continuity. Is there scene-by-scene and shot-by-shot cohesion in the film. The answer for TF1 is "Sometimes." The answer for TF2 is resolutely "no." This is the factor in which the issues with the instant cross-country flights, walking from the Museum to the desert, and robots in two places at once cause the failure of the film, objectively, in the technical sense.

2: Acting. This rubric is mostly objective, with some subjectivity thrown in and a healthy dose of appeal to sensibility. I don't think it bears explanation. The only successful roles acted in the film seem to be those of the bots and Turturro, regardless of thong.

3: Lighting and angle: Were the characters visible and discernible when they needed to be? The answer is absolutely a negative in this sense. A lot of the scenes were an utter mishmash. That's not to say that the characters were always indiscernible but they were definitely hard to pick out when it was important.

There are others, but I wanted to give examples. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you should like the movie. However, if you are calling this movie good in a technical sense, you are flat-wrong. Period.

Did we see different movies? I honestly had none of those problems following the movie or seeing things in it. Acting? Let's skip that and just say I agree (subjectively) that it was pretty awful.

I deduce that our populace has been stricken by an acute case of ADD. Did you really need explaining of their driving down a long desolate desert road? Why did they need to include the trip through Israel? It was not relevant to the story, and thus occurred off screen, it's assumed and implied. When you show every goddamn glaring moment of a road trip we end up with LotR. And... they teleported from the museum to the desert...they didn't walk. Jetfire teleported them. I am thinking you just weren't paying attention. (remember them flying through the air, incurring injuries from landing, complaining that Jetfire may have not gotten them to the right planet, much less the right location?)

And it's certainly funny that you complain about lighting and angles and not being able to see characters, but were able to spot the robots being in two places at once...although I do agree that is quite the non contiguous flaw, even though I myself didn't see it. Since I cannot frame by frame the movie yet, I will hold this until I get it on video in about 6 weeks (or is it less than that now?).

larrimo: Patterson: larrimo: I don't know about you, but I went into the theater to see giant robots smashing each other... Guess what I saw?



The underside of your enemy's nuts?

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?

I hoped for the movie not to undermine itself at every possible opportunity. The movie didn't suck because it was lots of action and explosions and not a lot of genius dialogue. It sucked because of things like robot testicles, robots humping Megan Fox's leg, John Turturro's naked ass, hash brownies, and half a dozen other travesties.

tarkus1980: 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?

I hoped for the movie not to undermine itself at every possible opportunity. The movie didn't suck because it was lots of action and explosions and not a lot of genius dialogue. It sucked because of things like robot testicles, robots humping Megan Fox's leg, John Turturro's naked ass, hash brownies, and half a dozen other travesties.

Yep. The movie really dared to be stupid.

Dr_Gats: Leishu: This thread is quite epic.

For reference, there are actual objective standards in the technical sense to what makes a good film. Those standards do not mean that you should like or not like a film, but they are objective.

1: ie: Continuity. Is there scene-by-scene and shot-by-shot cohesion in the film. The answer for TF1 is "Sometimes." The answer for TF2 is resolutely "no." This is the factor in which the issues with the instant cross-country flights, walking from the Museum to the desert, and robots in two places at once cause the failure of the film, objectively, in the technical sense.

2: Acting. This rubric is mostly objective, with some subjectivity thrown in and a healthy dose of appeal to sensibility. I don't think it bears explanation. The only successful roles acted in the film seem to be those of the bots and Turturro, regardless of thong.

3: Lighting and angle: Were the characters visible and discernible when they needed to be? The answer is absolutely a negative in this sense. A lot of the scenes were an utter mishmash. That's not to say that the characters were always indiscernible but they were definitely hard to pick out when it was important.

There are others, but I wanted to give examples. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you should like the movie. However, if you are calling this movie good in a technical sense, you are flat-wrong. Period.

Did we see different movies? I honestly had none of those problems following the movie or seeing things in it. Acting? Let's skip that and just say I agree (subjectively) that it was pretty awful.

I deduce that our populace has been stricken by an acute case of ADD. Did you really need explaining of their driving down a long desolate desert road? Why did they need to include the trip through Israel? It was not relevant to the story, and thus occurred off screen, it's assumed and implied. When you show every goddamn glaring moment of a road trip we end up with LotR. And... they teleported from the museum to the desert...they didn't walk. Jetfire teleported them. I am thinking you just weren't paying attention. (remember them flying through the air, incurring injuries from landing, complaining that Jetfire may have not gotten them to the right planet, much less the right location?)

And it's certainly funny that you complain about lighting and angles and not being able to see characters, but were able to spot the robots being in two places at once...although I do agree that is quite the non contiguous flaw, even though I myself didn't see it. Since I cannot frame by frame the movie yet, I will hold this until I get it on video in about 6 weeks (or is it less than that now?).

Is it that fast? I may have missed the explanation of the museum scene, I admit. However, that isn't the only instant teleportation that was made in the film.

tarkus1980: 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?

I hoped for the movie not to undermine itself at every possible opportunity. The movie didn't suck because it was lots of action and explosions and not a lot of genius dialogue. It sucked because of things like robot testicles, robots humping Megan Fox's leg, John Turturro's naked ass, hash brownies, and half a dozen other travesties.

No one complained yet that Bay recycled Transformers 1's desert village?

Surprised not to see this yet:

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


based on the fact that *everything* I have ever seen you post on fark is complete crap, I think I'm going to start checking Roger Ebert's reviews.


You are like an anti-savant. The opposite of you pretty much defines a sane and happy person.

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

Megan Fox is a butterthumb.

There, I said it.

FTFY.

I just didn't like the movie, I thought it sucked.
I won't waste my bandwidth when it hits Newsgroups.

Just sooo disappointing.. You shouldn't be waiting for the movie to end.

/I really liked the first one and have watched many times with my wife and son.

The soundtrack is good.

well, I've never spent all day in one thread, but this was fun; unfortunately my shift is over.

/For the record, I was a huge fan of robot balls. If any of you argue that Devastator should not have had huge, swinging wrecking balls, please DIAF.

DamnYankees: I haven't seen the movie, but can the ostebsible main characters really be that unimportant?

Yep. :)

I haven't read a full thread this long in ages. Hilarious stuff everyone.

Solty Dog: The soundtrack is good.

Only if you like emo hard rock.

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.

I got to see 'Drag Me To Hell' at a free preview about a week before it opened. Can't wait for the dvd... definitely going into my collection. That is one nasty old woman though...

/here kitty kitty kitty...

Assumption 1: Critics are douchey asshats.
Assumption 2: Movies that critics hate tend to do well in the box office.
Assumption 3: Movies are made for the cash


Conclusion:
The opinion of a douchey asshat does not matter, and pissing off said douchey asshats is a Good Thing, if you are a director. Why? You'll get much higher numbers.

This brings up a very interesting question: Why didn't Michael Bay just bribe Roger Ebert?

Who gives a shiat about Megan Fox, Shia LaLoser, or Steven Spielberg's signing on to this piece of crap.

Here's a tip, the movie is a piece of shiat. Quit trying to justify your own stupidity for paying to see it because you like to watch robots fighting and explosions. Oh and by the way, by paying to see this drivel you're contributing to more drivel marched out by accountants in LA banking on suckers like you.

/please march out the tired warhorse of "Were you expecting Citizen Kane?" one more time. Action movies can be much better and done more thoughtfully.
//If you paid for this movie and didn't bring children, then you're a child. Accept it and move on.

Rotten Tomatoes top 5:

19%
Transformers: Revenge ... $42.3M
45%
Ice Age: Dawn of the D... $41.7M
65%
Public Enemies $25.3M
46%
The Proposal $12.9M
78%
The Hangover $11.3M

GEE, THATS INTERESTING!
LeafyGreens: Who gives a shiat about Megan Fox, Shia LaLoser, or Steven Spielberg's signing on to this piece of crap.

Here's a tip, the movie is a piece of shiat. Quit trying to justify your own stupidity for paying to see it because you like to watch robots fighting and explosions. Oh and by the way, by paying to see this drivel you're contributing to more drivel marched out by accountants in LA banking on suckers like you.

/please march out the tired warhorse of "Were you expecting Citizen Kane?" one more time. Action movies can be much better and done more thoughtfully.
//If you paid for this movie and didn't bring children, then you're a child. Accept it and move on.

Know how I know you're a douchey asshat?

TsukasaK: Rotten Tomatoes top 5:

19%
Transformers: Revenge ... $42.3M
45%
Ice Age: Dawn of the D... $41.7M
65%
Public Enemies $25.3M
46%
The Proposal $12.9M
78%
The Hangover $11.3M

GEE, THATS INTERESTING!
LeafyGreens: Who gives a shiat about Megan Fox, Shia LaLoser, or Steven Spielberg's signing on to this piece of crap.

Here's a tip, the movie is a piece of shiat. Quit trying to justify your own stupidity for paying to see it because you like to watch robots fighting and explosions. Oh and by the way, by paying to see this drivel you're contributing to more drivel marched out by accountants in LA banking on suckers like you.

/please march out the tired warhorse of "Were you expecting Citizen Kane?" one more time. Action movies can be much better and done more thoughtfully.
//If you paid for this movie and didn't bring children, then you're a child. Accept it and move on.

Know how I know you're a douchey asshat?

Why, because I don't equate box office to the quality of the movie?

Queue up your Britney/Maroon 5 playlist, it'll soothe your savage mind.

LeafyGreens: Why, because I don't equate box office to the quality of the movie?

Queue up your Britney/Maroon 5 playlist, it'll soothe your savage mind.

Well, making a couple of small assumptions here, namely that A: More people are seeing a movie with high box office numbers, and B: Well critiqued movies seem to do proportionally WORSE, at least going by the top five..

There's a correlation between the quality of a movie and its box office numbers. There's also an inverse correlation between a movie's Tomatometer/Metascore and its box office numbers.

Why?

Let's up the ante on the nerdity of this thread:

That Alice chick, which one do you think was she in G1? Bomb-burst? Finback? Skullgrin? Iguanus? Or Submarauder?

TsukasaK: There's a correlation between the quality of a movie and its box office numbers

A negative correlation.

Or more properly: There is a correlation between MARKETING budget and high box office numbers.

By anyone's reckoning, this is a terrible movie. By a critic's standard this is an open leaking wound of a movie.

now, you might have liked it. That can still be true at the same time. You can like a bad movie. That does not make it into a good movie. It just means that you liked this particular bad bad movie. Getting mad at a critic for calling a bad movie bad is nonsense.

TF1 was a very bad movie also. It was as bad as Bay could have made a movie, given the budget and the fact that other professionals were involved in making the movie. He did everything in his power to make it worse.

for TF2 he made the extra effort to get rid of anyone that made the first movie tolerable and gave raises to those that helped him wreck TF1. $8 million spent on the script. You would *have* to pay top dollar to get something that incomprehensible and pointless and trite. It could not be left to chance. The result is a legendary bad movie. how bad ? this makes the 1998 Godzilla movie seem poignant and focused. old rubber suit Godzilla movies have more coherent narrative.

Bill Frist: TsukasaK: There's a correlation between the quality of a movie and its box office numbers

A negative correlation.

Or more properly: There is a correlation between MARKETING budget and high box office numbers.

[citation needed] on both counts.

TsukasaK: LeafyGreens: Why, because I don't equate box office to the quality of the movie?

Queue up your Britney/Maroon 5 playlist, it'll soothe your savage mind.

Well, making a couple of small assumptions here, namely that A: More people are seeing a movie with high box office numbers, and B: Well critiqued movies seem to do proportionally WORSE, at least going by the top five..

There's a correlation between the quality of a movie and its box office numbers. There's also an inverse correlation between a movie's Tomatometer/Metascore and its box office numbers.

Why?

Because (usually) the people with the merit to have a movie made tend to put a bit more into it that robots and Megan Fox. Granted, that may be what the unwashed Philistines want to see, but then what does that tell you about the unwashed Philistines?

There is no "correlation between the quality of a movie and its box office numbers," you imbecile. There is a direct correlation of whether the movie provides the escapism and sense of unfiltered living that many lack in their day-to-day lives that makes those movies so attracting.

That's why. That's why so many people will pay to watch the most egregious piece of filth, just for two hours of pretending to be what they're not. That's what drives up box office numbers. Please though, apologize more for this slop that's been shoveled in your trough.

It's just a movie.

dbaggins: By anyone's reckoning, this is a terrible movie. By a critic's standard this is an open leaking wound of a movie.

now, you might have liked it. That can still be true at the same time. You can like a bad movie. That does not make it into a good movie. It just means that you liked this particular bad bad movie. Getting mad at a critic for calling a bad movie bad is nonsense.

TF1 was a very bad movie also. It was as bad as Bay could have made a movie, given the budget and the fact that other professionals were involved in making the movie. He did everything in his power to make it worse.

for TF2 he made the extra effort to get rid of anyone that made the first movie tolerable and gave raises to those that helped him wreck TF1. $8 million spent on the script. You would *have* to pay top dollar to get something that incomprehensible and pointless and trite. It could not be left to chance. The result is a legendary bad movie. how bad ? this makes the 1998 Godzilla movie seem poignant and focused. old rubber suit Godzilla movies have more coherent narrative.

I could shiat in a hat and call it art, and maybe millions of people would pay to see it. Perhaps ticket sales to see my shiat in a hat would be greater than 200 million dollars. But it would still be shiat in a hat. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules.

Let me quote Stephen King, avowed lover of dreck in Danse Macabre:
(The Horror Movie as Junk Food) "The reason for seeing bad movies, I suppose is that you don't know it's going to be bad until you've seen it for yourself- as previously pointed out, most movie critics can't be trusted here....
You don't appreciate cream unless you've drunk a lot of milk, and maybe you don't even appreciate milk unless you've drunk some that's gone sour. Bad films may sometimes be amusing, sometimes even successful, but their only real usefulness is to form that basis of comparison: to define positive values in terms of their own negative charm. They show us what to look for because it is missing in themselves. After that has been determined, it becomes, I think, actively dangerous to hold on to these bad films... and they must be discarded."

Well, here's a 'bad movie' that is pretty good: