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


There are many awards that Bay will never win, but "Editing" is near the top to the list.

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

That is all.

That's about what I came to say.

Yeah_Right: 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

God, I'm tired of this sort of "elitism is bad" bullshiat. You know what that got us? George W. Bush, a farked economy, and kids who can't string together three thoughts.

Give me an elitist. I want to know the opinions of people who actually give a damn about their topic of interest and can share their knowledge with me, making me maybe give a damn too. If I want to have a beer with someone, I'll go to the bar, not the White House. If I want to talk politics, I'd rather listen to a policy wonk. If I want to talk movies, I'd rather talk to someone like Ebert who lives for the stuff.

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

This is going to make me sound like a New Critic back from the dead, but I blame deconstructionism (or more accurately, bad misunderstandings of deconstructionism by pop philosophers writing for lay audiences) for this trend.

Richard in a Box: 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.

It's not a mystical standard. It just requires training that you haven't received.

mattharvest: 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?

Composition, perspective, the interplay of light and shadow, the choice of subject matter, thickness of brush stroke, choice of hue.

That's off the top of my head.

Articles like this are why Ebert rules. That movie was a piece of shiat and I'm a mark for large robots and hot,slutty women.

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

Would it be fair, then, to say that the Mona Lisa is accessible by everyone? And if so, would it be fair that someone who has spent a lot of time studying Da Vinci, or even more broadly the techniques of the Italian Renassaince, would have avenues of accessibility that the average joe wouldn't? That's the difference between Ebert and us as average movie goers.

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".

True, but it also means a particular size of roofing slate, a young knight who doesn't have his own banner yet, or a fur seal that's kept away from the mating males. Which isn't to say I disagree with you -- just that it's an example of the sort of extra knowledge someone who studies the language might have that someone who doesn't wouldn't.

mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Your conception makes no sense, and let me illustrate:

I am attracted to my girlfriend.

Is this a subjective or objective truth?

It is objectively true or false that you are attracted to her. The difficulty in measuring it is irrelevant to the truth-value of the statement.

It is also subjectively true that you experience attracting to your girlfriend (assuming you're not lying).

They're two entirely different statements. Subjective truth, at best, indicates the existence of an objective truth. They're most certainly not mutually exclusive.

However, you've moved the goalposts a great deal here; we weren't talking about subjective truths with regards to the quality of art, but rather whether the definition of art, good art, bad art, etc. are subjective.

But wasn't one of the points bandied about whether or not beauty can be defined? Isn't beauty one of the determinants of attraction? Or are you saying that is not longer germane to the argument because it doesn't seem to support your position?

Walked out of the first one, not giving my money to the second one.

/Grew up with Transformers
//These ones ain't right

Just finished watching it and I'm glad I downloaded it instead of paying to see it.

I enjoyed the first one but this movie was pretty disjointed.

Got to the point where I was ready for it to end.

StaleCoffee: 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.

Much like GI Joe, the cartoon we loved as children was about merchandising. The cartoons were 30-minute advertisements.

But I still loved them.

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: Saying "I liked this film" means nothing more than you had a pleasurable enjoyment of the film.

Saying "This film is a good film" implies much more, unless you operate in some weird bubble where you think good means nothing more than your subjective expierence.

Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong? Because it is considered by some "experts" in a given field to be well-written? If you feel that way, that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion or make me wrong in my book.

You are correct, only insofar as you can articulate the reasons why you didn't enjoy it (ie. I didn't think the plot was particularly riveting, I didn't enjoy the dancing sparrows, etc). If you just make a blanket statement without support, the experts are more right.

And why the scare quotes around experts? Are you actually suggesting that your opinion on a subject is equally as valid as someone who has spent time studying it? If so, what makes you feel their study is invalidated and your opinion validated?

Aboleth: 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?

god i hated pretenders the first time around, this movie took the idea and made it worst, but hot. Thats assuming she was even a pretender, god knows they never explained that, or anything for that matter. All i know for sure is that everyone could have died at the end and i wouldn't have cared, i just wanted it to end.
Also am i alone in thinking that if they just drop Sam and focused on Josh Dummel and Tyrese's characters that this could have been a better? I do mean drop sam from transformers 1

/she was Iguanus, he transformered into a motorcycle thin and petit
/hides the robot inside

I love mindless entertainment. I can spend a Saturday in front of the Sci-Fi Channel watching crap films, and I love it.

But I think you'd have to be a goddamned retard to spend $10 to watch "Transformers."

I mean, the previews suck. The first one sucked. If you like this sort of thing, you are the problem.

Because YOU suck.

Just adding to the post count by voicing my opinions:

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was god-awful cinema, with a poorly-written, hole-riddled plot executed poorly by actors it largely deserved. The few shining moments of the film were when the actors, particularly Turturro, embraced their characters' oddities as caricatures and delightfully carried them to their illogical extremes in clear parody of the film.

Also,

I farking LOVED Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Get drunk, get stoned, or just go without sleep for a while and go see this. Wall-to-wall robots smashing shiat, this time from far enough away that you can tell who's pounding on who. (Who says Bay can't take criticism?) Go ahead and get that large bucket-o-soda at the concession stand. You can go pee during the talkie parts. Great summer entertainment.

I find that I can't enjoy stupid films anymore. It all started, I think, when I was seven and watched Howard the Duck. I left the theater in disgust, my movie-watching experience changed forever.

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

There are slut robots in it? Well crap now I have to see it

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 a company spends millions on a movie and it receives negative reviews, you're dang right they are going to pay for commenters to furiously rebuke those critics in the harshest ways possible.

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 smart people who can sit through a real movie are fewer in numbers?

It's really that simple.

There are more stupid, lazy, short-attention spanned people in the world than people who can actually consume real dialogue, plot, and character. So they make movies like TF2 for the masses.

Don't get me wrong, I had fun watching it (nothing else to do that night), but it was a REALLY STUPID movie with a lot of amateur mistakes. I'll never see it ever again. And really if they make a TF3 there is a good chance I just won't go see it, because the poor quality of TF2 will be ringing in my head the entire time ruining the experience.

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

There are slut robots in it? Well crap now I have to see it

Dude, there is free pron on the net. Save yourself the mental anguish and fap in the privacy of your own home.

LeafyGreens: 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.

Yeahhh.. Why did I know you were gonna make some sorta "unwashed philistines" wharrgarbl? How's the air up there on that high horse?

I'm just going to stay with my original theory, I.E. you are are one of the aforementioned douchey asshats.

Ummm... Did anyone expect this to be a good movie? You see this movie for the action and special effects, of course the story is going to suck, it's about robots from space that turn into obsolete human inventions...

TsukasaK: Yeahhh.. Why did I know you were gonna make some sorta "unwashed philistines" wharrgarbl? How's the air up there on that high horse?

I'm just going to stay with my original theory, I.E. you are are one of the aforementioned douchey asshats.

Soooo...

LeafyGreens: Well thought out response

You: You're a douche!


Maybe there is something to that "unwashed philistines" thing?

philotech: Ummm... Did anyone expect this to be a good movie? You see this movie for the action and special effects, of course the story is going to suck, it's about robots from space that turn into obsolete human inventions...

How is "space-travelling robots that masquerade as vehicles and beat each other up" any worse than "time-traveling robots that masquerade as humans and beat each other up" - cause the latter was the concept for one of the best action movies ever made.

lets be serious for a second here

you are going to see a sequel of a summer blockbuster, Michael Bay movie, made by Michael Bay about giant robots from space that hit each other.

What the fark was everyone expecting?

The movie was unnecessarily vulgar and stupid. I mean they nearly showed a crotch shot of the fembot girl - and various other stupidly vague things...mom on a pot brownie? For kids? Seriously...

But it's a movie about alien robots that transform into planes, trains and automobiles, based on toy...so the word "unrealistic" obviously doesn't fit, but the movie did fail to suspend my disbelief and managed to make me cringe or disgust me several times, so, to me, it was pointless drivel.

And July 15th is only around the corner. *sigh*

/damned muggles

crunch-o-matic: lets be serious for a second here

you are going to see a sequel of a summer blockbuster, Michael Bay movie, made by Michael Bay about giant robots from space that hit each other.

What the fark was everyone expecting?

Oddly enough, we were expecting giant robots from space that hit each other. Not giant robot Steppin Fetchit, John Turro's Complete Waste Of Time, and an utterly inscrutable plot.

I see I missed out on some fun after leaving work and there are still people trying to argue that there are right and wrong objective opinions when it comes to art. I'd respond to the individual questions, but I'm not going to bother because:

1) You aren't going to convince me that my opinion of a good movie is any more right or wrong than someone else's based off some set of standards that I "have not been trained on" (elitist much?) that said people made up themselves.

and

2) I'm not going to convince you that what makes a movie good or bad is objective and the so-called subjective qualities were picked by people wanting to have something arbitrary to measure to back up their own opinions. (Lighting? Really? If you watch a movie and the lighting determines if you enjoyed it or not, you must be miserable watching all these "bad" movies!)

and

3) I have work to do that I already put off for too long. :(

Have fun continuing everyone, it's been an amusing read and I enjoyed all the flames I got from people who didn't have anything interesting to contribute to the pseudo-philosophical discussion. :)

Oh, and to Bill Frist and DamnYankees, you guys really should think about being film critics.

/Seriously
//Not a slam, just an observation

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.

That only works for the first week of a release, word of mouth takes over after that.

T.rex: I loved the first one. But this new one is too crass, too long, and too much the same thing

Bad Boys 2?

Fano: 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."

What series were you watching? Jesus slow dancing with Bhudda. Chip was in a wheelchair, Carly was Spike's girl and Sparkplug was the Dad. Spike was never crippled!

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?

You obviously haven't read the fanboy rants about there being too much focus on the humans in the first one.

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

Bah. It breaks the "don't spoil the plot" rule about 57 times. Review the movie, not the script.

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.

See, this is a good review.

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?

alice_600: Fano: 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."

What series were you watching? Jesus slow dancing with Bhudda. Chip was in a wheelchair, Carly was Spike's girl and Sparkplug was the Dad. Spike was never crippled!

See? There was so little Spike I couldn't tell the difference!

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

Best review ever.

GreenAdder: It's just a movie.

Oh I see what you did there...

Way late to join the foray here, hopefully not too late but I'm not sure what the hate is all about. Here's a menu of the top 3 complaints I'm seeing about the movie what they consist of and their translations.

Wahburger - Oh it was Bay, he sucks and everything he makes sucks without exception for any reason EVAR! (Translation: I have my predispositioned prejiduce against Bay and am on a warpath against anything having to do with him regardless whether or not I've seen his latest movie!)

French Cries - Oh the movie had no plotline! (Translation: I am so used to slow paced movies where the convoluted storyline with "witty twists and dialogue" make me feel superior to those who watch movies that do what they set out to do - ie; an action flick with *gasp* ACTION! - and can't comprehend an otherwise straightforward plotline because it's so obvious.)

WharrgarB L T - The action scenes suck and I can't tell what's going on! Oh and Bay sucks! (Translation: 1) Holy crap I got to the theatre late and got stuck in the front rows so I can't keep up with the action, but it's Bay's fault so I hate the movie! 2)I'm too old and my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be so if it's not a movie with slow-paced action then I can't differentiate between the character and the broken chair in the background anyways so... Bay obviously sucks!

Let's not even go into all those who think people that like this movie or this type of movie are nothing more than the scum under their bootheel as they waltz through the air effortlessly with their immaculately perfect view of what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Opinions are opinions, they're as equaly valid as they are equaly invalid. Opinions equate to perspective and nothing more, to pretend that this isn't true is to lie to yourself. Also, intellect doesn't make any one perspective more valid than another, and that's something a lot of people choose to ignore.

If anything the differences in perspectives and opinions are what help keep things fresh and help propel ourselves forward, after all could you imagine where society would be if everyone shared the same viewpoint? I wonder if we would have ever made it out of the hunter/gatherer society.

I thought the movie was a good action/fx movie like it was meant to be. Nobody should ever accuse an action flick of going for "oscar good." I can think of other summer movies that deserve more biatching about than this.

/Enjoy your Whaargar B L T with those French Cries

Cthulhu Theory: French Cries - Oh the movie had no plotline! (Translation: I am so used to slow paced movies where the convoluted storyline with "witty twists and dialogue" make me feel superior to those who watch movies that do what they set out to do - ie; an action flick with *gasp* ACTION! - and can't comprehend an otherwise straightforward plotline because it's so obvious.)

If you can call anything about the movie's plot "straightforward", you not only haven't seen it, you don't know anybody who has. None of it makes any damn sense at all.

HeartBurnKid: Cthulhu Theory: French Cries - Oh the movie had no plotline! (Translation: I am so used to slow paced movies where the convoluted storyline with "witty twists and dialogue" make me feel superior to those who watch movies that do what they set out to do - ie; an action flick with *gasp* ACTION! - and can't comprehend an otherwise straightforward plotline because it's so obvious.)

If you can call anything about the movie's plot "straightforward", you not only haven't seen it, you don't know anybody who has. None of it makes any damn sense at all.

Remember that time The Son of Spike got this transforming exosuit and crash landed on a planet of robots that watch american television who eventually smacked a giant planet eating robot whose origins were not explained after said giant planet eating robot brought another robot who used to transform into a gun back to life and made him transform into a bigger gun and also changed all of his friends into space robots instead of... not space robots, I guess. Remember that?