If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Musical Express)   Michael Bay denies Transformers 4 is a reboot, says it actually takes place four years after the events of the previous films, but will still have his trademark explosions and lack of discernible plot   (nme.com) divider line 78
    More: PSA, Michael Bay, Transformers, John Turturro, reboot, Tyrese Gibson, Josh Duhamel, Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson  
•       •       •

2189 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Feb 2013 at 7:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-04 02:04:05 AM
I was a big fan of the old animated cartoon series, and the animated movie.  The first live action movie was.. about a teenager's problems.  Robots were almost an afterthought.  I didn't see the other two.
 
2013-02-04 02:13:59 AM
The thing that gets me with Bay movies is the horrible dialog.  Especially if there's ANYTHING in it related to computers.  The dialog is so filled with non sequiters and random jargon that its not just bad, its offensive.  Worse than a ST:TNG episode.
 
2013-02-04 02:24:41 AM
I really enjoyed the first one. I saw it with my wife and parents in the theater and we all enjoyed it. The nerd part appealed to me and they liked the commercial aspect.

The next two movies were horrible. I didn't expect much, but they were just all bad.
 
2013-02-04 02:35:54 AM
I want to come into this thread so I can comment that I don't care about these movies.
 
2013-02-04 02:51:39 AM
Michael Bay thought of the Transformers as crap. He more or less said Steven Spielberg this in his interview from the first movie when he initially turned it down. But according to him, Spielberg made him take the job nevertheless.

His heart was never in it in the first place. If you don't think of the titular characters of a movie as real characters and concentrate more on the humans and cars blowing up, then everything from the get go has been badly planned conceived. But now the money is rolling in, I don't think he'll ever stop. He'll just go on... "Let's try this character Sunstreaker. But change him so he'll speaks like Gary Coleman in Diff'rent Strokes but with a Mexican accent! Everyone will LOVE him! Especially kids. Now let me call GM to see what car they'll pay next to be in the movie. That'll be our Sunstreaker!"
 
2013-02-04 03:08:08 AM
"I am Optimus Prime, and although our worlds are joined by a hidden past, we will face our future together so that we will never forget our history. For I am Optimus Prime."
 
2013-02-04 03:22:56 AM
As bad as the third one turned out, it was actually a Transformer story... almost.  Space bridge, exploiting the Earth for resources, saving Cybertron in the process...  they just couldn't hold it together.  There ARE some of those moments to enjoy as a Transformers fan though.  Megatron on Lincoln's armchair, Laserbeak perched on his arm.  Peter Cullen as Optimus and Leonard Nimoy voicing another character.  Those moments are just few and FAR between.
 
2013-02-04 04:26:46 AM

stoli n coke: Gyrfalcon: Mugato: Michael Bay has a special talent. It takes a special skill to make a movie about transforming robots fighting each other boring.

It takes a special skill to make ANY movie with that many explosions in it boring, really.

Although I don't necessarily blame Bay. "The Rock" was pretty good. I blame his choice of leading "man".


No, I think it's safe to put it on Bay. "The Rock" looked like it could have been done by any of the directors in the Simpson/Bruckheimer stable (especially Tony Scott). Since Bay was relatively inexperienced, he had Jerry watching him like a hawk through the shoot. The fact that the producers also hired some pretty big talent, including Aaron Sorkin to work on the script also helped.

You can see the decline in the quality of Bay's films by the amount of money the budget goes up and the amount of control he gets.


True; but you can't deny that LaBeef destroys any film he's in, either.
 
2013-02-04 04:28:57 AM
The Transformers movies had discernible plots.  Their problem was mediocre acting and dialogue.
 
2013-02-04 05:28:07 AM

hamdinger: Rachel Taylor from the first movie is better than both of 'em.


I'm ok with that, they can squeeze her boobs too.
/and vice versa
//and all around
 
2013-02-04 06:06:19 AM
I never watched Lens Flare Fest 1 and 2 - why would I start watching the franchise at Episode 3?
 
2013-02-04 07:07:57 AM

Macular Degenerate: I never watched Lens Flare Fest 1 and 2 - why would I start watching the franchise at Episode 3?


We're not talking about the Trek movies
 
2013-02-04 08:14:53 AM
My concern is that if I haven't watched the first three I might not get the fourth one and will spend the whole movie confused about plot points, inside references and other dramatic....

...sorry.  I can only keep a straight face for so long.  It's a popcorn flick aimed at middle-aged adolescents and young kids with too much Red Bull in their system.  They suck.  But they will do well as the intended audience has money to throw at such things and will show up for them; Tyler Perry proved that one to us.

*shrugs*

That's life.  Not everything can be for me.
 
2013-02-04 08:38:34 AM
Decepticons threaten earth
Autobots need artifact to stop the Decepticons
Sam Witwicky saves the day

/The plot of every Bayformers film
 
2013-02-04 08:40:10 AM
Froe

simplicimus: There's a 3? Who watches this dreck?


It was basically Ultimate Doom (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Ultimate_Doom,_Part_1 )

Only worse...

And *less* realistic...
 
2013-02-04 08:56:44 AM
And yet, I still don't see anything about the live Robotech movie....
 
2013-02-04 09:29:24 AM
I would love to see what Michael Bay would turn out if he were only given 30 million to make a film.  I have a feeling we'd see a very clear picture of what his skill level is.
 
2013-02-04 09:38:51 AM

Mercutio74: I would love to see what Michael Bay would turn out if he were only given 30 million to make a film.  I have a feeling we'd see a very clear picture of what his skill level is.


Pain and Gain comes out in April. Budget on that was 20 and change.
 
2013-02-04 09:44:58 AM

stoli n coke: Mercutio74: I would love to see what Michael Bay would turn out if he were only given 30 million to make a film.  I have a feeling we'd see a very clear picture of what his skill level is.

Pain and Gain comes out in April. Budget on that was 20 and change.


This should be good then.  If that was the budget, most of it was probably tied up in paying the actors (unless they took points instead of a big payday).  I'm going to predict it'll be not so good...
 
2013-02-04 09:49:04 AM

stoli n coke: No, I think it's safe to put it on Bay. "The Rock" looked like it could have been done by any of the directors in the Simpson/Bruckheimer stable (especially Tony Scott). Since Bay was relatively inexperienced, he had Jerry watching him like a hawk through the shoot. The fact that the producers also hired some pretty big talent, including Aaron Sorkin to work on the script also helped.


The Rock is difficult to explain. It helped that it had Sean Connery and Ed Harris but also, Michael Bay didn't suck so much back then. He was probably trying to be a real filmmaker then and not... whatever he is now. Sure there were explosions and the slow motion camera thing but used sparingly and not through the whole film. And you didn't hate every single character, including the ones you weren't supposed to hate.

The guy sucks at what he does and makes a shiatton of money doing it. That's prevalent in every industry.
 
2013-02-04 09:49:34 AM
The bad thing is that Hollywood simply does not believe that people will watch a movie about big giant robots without humans being the leads.  They don't get that people can identify with and sympathize with Optimus Prime as much as they can with "random army guy jammed into the plot".

What they have missed is that there are now a few generations raised on cartoons and comics where humans aren't always the main characters and we're totally comfortable with such stories.
 
2013-02-04 09:52:23 AM

Mercutio74: stoli n coke: Mercutio74: I would love to see what Michael Bay would turn out if he were only given 30 million to make a film.  I have a feeling we'd see a very clear picture of what his skill level is.

Pain and Gain comes out in April. Budget on that was 20 and change.

This should be good then.  If that was the budget, most of it was probably tied up in paying the actors (unless they took points instead of a big payday).  I'm going to predict it'll be not so good...



I don't have high expectations for it. And yes, they kept the budget down by having Bay, Marky Mark, and the Rock not take a salary.
 
2013-02-04 01:47:10 PM
How about a reboot and just call it Gobots.

upload.wikimedia.org

Personally, I would love to see these guys enter the Bayformers movie:
 
2013-02-04 01:49:12 PM
bah html fail:  Dinobots
planetcybertron.com

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-02-04 06:03:08 PM

Ishkur: Heims: The first one was fairly good

Just for curiosity's sake, what part of the first movie was fairly good?

Was it the alien robots peeing, farting, humping, and stepping in dog poo while trying to hide behind a house? Was it the cinematography, with its closeups of jagged metal and shaky claustrophobic in-your-face nonsense of blurring colors and loud, obnoxious noises trying to confuse you instead of show you what's going on? Was it the schizophrenic direction, giving the audiences five opposing tones and moods states in a 40 second timeframe? Where it completely loses focus as to how it wants you to feel about it? And the marketing can't decide if its a slapstick comedy, a teen romantic fable, an action adventure, a political thriller or a war epic? Was it the writing, wrought with plot holes, continuity errors, inane backstory, cringing dialogue, hackneyed cliches like "destiny" subplots and "loser gets the girl" MTV date movie bullshiat? Was it the characters -- underdeveloped and underutilized, with no redeeming qualities in any of the humans and barely any humanity in the robots (except for one), where the leads were played by "exasperated suprised man" and "wooden pinup girl"? Was it the setting, that jumped around from city to desert to halfway around the world without any real considerable time given to how the characters could all get there so fast? Was it the fact that everyone's wearing lipstick for some reason? Was that fairly good? Really?


No, it was the fact that I could grab some popcorn, put my feet up, and watch an enjoyable B movie with A level effects and not feel my brain start to leak out my ears.  So about the same as the first Pirates movie.

Contrast with the second, which was painful to try to watch, and the third, which is nigh-impossible to watch.

/ and then take a deep breath and realize it's a popcorn action flick.  Not everything has to be high art, sometimes it just has to dumb action.
 
2013-02-04 06:10:27 PM

Heims: No, it was the fact that I could grab some popcorn, put my feet up, and watch an enjoyable B movie with A level effects and not feel my brain start to leak out my ears. So about the same as the first Pirates movie.


Your brain must be thicker than mine. Mine oozed out completely by the time the parents questioned the boy about his masturbating. In fact, any time the parents were on screen, I was losing brain cells.

The first Pirates movie was a great movie because it didn't contain any of that.

Heims: Contrast with the second, which was painful to try to watch, and the third, which is nigh-impossible to watch.


The second and third movies had the exact same moronic shiat as the first. There is no "better" of the three. They're all farking crap.
 
2013-02-04 08:44:38 PM

Mugato: Michael Bay has a special talent. It takes a special skill to make a movie about transforming robots fighting each other boring.


Double challenge: make it about a beloved group of cartoon robots duking it out AND prominently feature Megan Fox's chest, and yet make none of it watchable. I swear he was engaged in some Barney Stinson-like scam to score chicks (but I haven't figured how how making terrible movies does this).
 
2013-02-04 11:50:50 PM
What sucks is that people rushed to see Bay's Transformers movies, which actually failed at making robots fighting each other interesting, but people mostly ignored Real Steel which was actually pretty fun and stands out as the Rocky of fighting robot movies. The fight scenes are pretty cool-- You can actually see the combatants and tell what they're doing!

And it helps that Hugh Jackman plays the whole movie with a straight face. Really, if you haven't seen Real Steel, you should check it out. It's surprisingly good, as long as you accept that the basic plot is Rocky meets Over The Top meets Rock-em-Sock-em Robots.
 
Displayed 28 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report