As reviews are starting to come in, let's contain them to one thread (I'll allow the racism thread and Bay-talk thread to exist on their own, so as to not clog up this one).

My favorite review so far has got to be this one from Luke Goodsell from Empire Magazine Australia. He manages to get me insanely excited about this film. Take a look.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/news/1828011/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen_premieres_in_australia


Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen premieres in Australia
Has Michael Bay made an absurd masterpiece of hubris?
by Luke Goodsell | June 19, 2009

You've never --- and we mean never, even by Michael Bay's standards --- seen $200 million lavished on two-and-a-half hours of such stratospherically absurd spectacle as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Understandably nerve-wracked Australian starlet Isabel Lucas prefaced the film's Sydney premiere by advising the audience to 'strap on' for the thrill ride to follow. Given the awkward giggles in the theatre, we're pretty sure she meant to say 'strap in'; then again, when you see her character, well --- mild spoiler alert --- maybe she meant it.

The familiar metallic soundwave soon strafed the usually-placid DreamWorks logo and then --- wow --- what could only be described as 150 minutes of operatic mayhem pummeled the senses.

So, has Michael Bay made history's most surreal masterpiece of self-parody, or is this cinema as we know it perishing in one almighty fireball of molten metal and cheese?

Even next to its hardly-timid predecessor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is bigger, longer and uncut --- in the very literal robot anatomy sense --- a tour de force of blowin' shit up that also works as a comedy more hilarious than Team America. It's as though Bay saw Matt Stone and Trey Parker's film and took it as an affectionate homage, not a satire.

The magnitude of the destruction defies expectations, just as the screenwriting defies any sense of narrative logic --- trust us, the 'matrix of leadership' and magical robot pixie dust make the Allspark seem plausible --- which, brought together with characters whose most banal conversations are filmed with whirling, 360-degree cameras or against cheeseball sunsets, pushes the film toward some kind of lunatic-art euphoria.

Seriously: where else are you likely to see wonders of the ancient world reduced to rubble while jive-talking robots yammer in grotesque caricature, or a film in which a slow-mo shot of Megan Fox bouncing away from danger sidles up to Iraq War-cinematography, sound grabs from Forrest Gump and earnest plays for Saving Private Ryan battlefield poignancy? In a movie abvout giant alien robots from Cybertron. Hell, it's even got Obama and Swine Flu references, as though Bay was mixing ADR while watching a live feed of trending topics on Twitter.

Which is all to say: do not miss it.

Revenge of the Fallen is hysterical, hyperbolic, hubristic and almost transcendentally silly; Z-movie heaven writ large with the sort of budget most freaky fringe auteurs could only dream of. Critics will no doubt decry its cacophony of robot-on-robot noise as the end of cinema, culture, and life as we know it, but in an alternate universe this could assume the status of bizzaro classic --- when the machines take over, it'll be their Citizen Kane.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Plus I already got my ticket for first show Wednesday...
________________________________________________________________________
<----- Me and all of my fairweather friends

.

-Sig-

“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"

-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.

^^^ Anger-making, troll-rousing statement

There is no good, got-damn reason for the following movies to be as long as they were:

Armageddon 2:35
Pearl Harbor 3:02
Bad Boys II 2:26
Transformers 2:24
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 2:31

The two Michael Bay movies that I REALLY liked (as opposed to the others that I thought were just meh <--- more anger and trolling to come off of this) are Bad Boys and The Rock... not-so-coincidentally, those were 2:07 and 2:16, respectively... but then again The Island was 2:16 and I didn't like it...
________________________________________________________________________
<----- Me and all of my fairweather friends

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

i just realized it starts next Wednesday and I'm off next Friday. Suddenly, I have something to do.
<----My debut album cover

--------

---------------------------------
<--The drought is over

"have fun reveling in your pettiness tho" (C) Dula summing up 98% of OKS

"I didnt finish a damn thing...matter of fact I jerked off after she left."
-Kobe speaking to investigators

L D E A

because I know they're gonna kill Prime, and Bay is gonna cause someone to seize out in the theater

Get out the room,
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893

Situation Podemy love

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/situation-podemy/id620232249

Situation Podemy : www.situationpodemy.wordpres

As long as this has more robots and less Shia I'm a happy little fuck. That was my problem with the first it was over 2hrs., had a pointless military storyline (come to think of it the story for the humans all together sucked) and the robots were barely in it.

With that said I hope to God they don't kill off the "black" Transformer in this one too.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

The descriptive review Longo posted up made me dizzy and gave me a mini-seazure.

Avatar?
E-Boogs and Nayi

MANHOODLUM
Most sig'd okp.
No Aliases.

MANHOODLUM via Twitter
MANHOODLUM@live.com
MANHOODLUM@yahoo.com
Tommy Moran @ Facebook
MANHOODLUM@tmo.blackberry.net

on DVD by October...
I'll wait...

On The Lookout 4:
some new music. WTF is going on this year?

unless the Autobots blow up the Paramount logo, FUCK THAT

>unless the Autobots blow up the Paramount logo, FUCK THAT


lmao, i'm gonna watch it at paramount studios tomorrow

but with all the explosions and cgi and cgi explosions you can definitely see where all the $200mil was spent. in terms of a cgi action spectacular i give it 3 out of 5. If you are going in with no idea of what the transformers franchise is then my rating is 2 out of 5. basically 2 1/2 hours of difficult to decipher robot fighting explosions and megan fox glory shots.

its just explosions and laughs

thats not the transformers i grew up to love
and sorry but i dont think that making a movie based on THAT transformers and sticking to that would have done any worse in the box office

￭￭￭￭

everyone will go see this shit and tell their friendsto go see it just like they did that shit star trek movie

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhhFRpbytOg&feature=related

--------

The nostalgic geek hate goes overboard when Transformers is the subject on the table.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

All one who might be interested in watching a film could ask, is that you tell a decent story, especially if the movie's going to stretch more than 2 hours.

This film is just another nostalgia cash in that shouldn't have even been green lighted with Bay at the helm.

It's like video game movies. They should just outright ban those films from being made.

Dragonball, etc.

The original DB told a good story. That movie? Shit. It's like these people don't even try to tell a story that would make someone watch something more than once.

Ban 'em.

I've mastered that routine in OKS, on some Neo shit. anyway:

"its just explosions and laughs...thats not the transformers i grew up to love"

ha. like the OG Transformers was anything more than that. check the Youtube -- a meteor is falling to Earth as a source of power, so Optimus recruits Dinobots (*think* about that one) to stop the Decepticons. and that's some kind of sacred cow that Bay is ruining?

please.

--------

It's not about shitting on a "sacred cow", it's more about "stop digging graves to regurgitate shit". Let sleeping dogs lie.

All that money could be used to make a totally original piece of explosive, glory shotting shit.

great that you judge Transformers on its own merits, but this fanboyism that I pointed out -- in this thread specifically -- is revisionist.

furthermore, you implying that Transformers' success is based on nostalgia...yeah I don't buy that. real fanboys did not make the last one a hit, for reasons stated.

--------

>great that you judge Transformers on its own merits, but this
>fanboyism that I pointed out -- in this thread specifically --
>is revisionist.

Not necessarily. Deluge never really goes into specifics as to why he says it's shit, other than "well, if you grew up on the originals, you'd think this sucks"/"it's just explosions and laughs". That leaves some room for interpretation.

Particularly, because The Doc is in that lot. The Doc thought the old shows and comic books were entertaining, but also very flawed. Continuity holes, animation errors. Hell, the reason why The Doc thought it was cool in the first place was because he liked anime-styled robots and (real-life) cars. What did sort of stick most from that show was the memorable voice acting and characterization of the robots, which sort of stuck through the series despite the plot holes and general silliness given. Otherwise, people wouldn't have been giving much a shit unless they were super-'80s encyclopedias in human form. It wasn't high-art, but neither was Beavis and Butt-Head. And even that franchise had a film that didn't disappoint.

Watching Bay's film, The Doc wasn't looking to see the '80s being recreated on-screen. If they were going to dig up that old grave, they could have at the very least made something that was "cool" to watch for an hour and a half. What he did see was a movie that was mildly amusing as far as the humans were concerned, but didn't really involve the robots all that much. Isn't that what the film was supposed to be about? The titular characters of the film were like a whole bunch of MacGuffins. They could have done better.

That "high art"/"sacred cow" argument is a cop out unless it's counter arguing somoene that explicitly states that "HEY! MEGATRON ISN'T A GUN! THIS IS BULLSHIT!" kind of line. You can make a good low-brow movie. Bay couldn't/can't. The fact that he's even getting a second shot at such crap is...revolting.

>furthermore, you implying that Transformers' success is based
>on nostalgia...yeah I don't buy that. real fanboys did not
>make the last one a hit, for reasons stated.

That wasn't the implication. The idea of bringing it back from the grave in the first place/it getting resigned is 100% based on nostalgia. That can't be refuted. Who actually went to see it is irrelevant.

That kinda shit just needs to stop. At least when '70s nostalgia was going on, we got a Pulp Fiction and That 70's Show out of it.

of course Bay had no intentions of replicating anything form the original show to please older fans. he just used the franchise as a rough template for his own movie.

Transformers has some brand name recognition, but its relevance as a nostalgic device is pretty thin. I'm kind of on the precipice of remembering the original TV show, and most people who saw Bay's movie were younger than me.

as far as what Deluge posted, he did specify that TV show was "more than explosions and laughs." nah, it wasn't. if you thought Bay's version sucked, cool, but the reason wasn't because he should've adhered to the original more exactly (now THAT would be cashing in on nostalgia).

the sacred cow argument is only a cop out to die-hard fans of the older show -- an implication that Bay ruined what once was great. well, Transformers was never great. it was a popular, childish cartoon with appealing character designs and no plot.

--------

>of course Bay had no intentions of replicating anything form
>the original show to please older fans. he just used the
>franchise as a rough template for his own movie.

why would he even pitch/use the franchise in the first place to do that? If not based on nostalgia, why?

>Transformers has some brand name recognition, but its
>relevance as a nostalgic device is pretty thin. I'm kind of on
>the precipice of remembering the original TV show, and most
>people who saw Bay's movie were younger than me.

Disagree here. That's eventually who went to see it, yes -- but they were lucky that the 24-under crowd actually bought in to the idea as a summer action flick. Bay didn't have to use Transformers to make his own movie of blowing up shit. He's done that countless times before. Using TF was mostly nostalgia, and they were lucky it didn't totally bomb.

>as far as what Deluge posted, he did specify that TV show was
>"more than explosions and laughs." nah, it wasn't. if you
>thought Bay's version sucked, cool, but the reason wasn't
>because he should've adhered to the original more exactly (now
>THAT would be cashing in on nostalgia).

He didn't say that the original show was "more than explosions and laughs"; he just said the Bay film was "a bunch of explosions and laughs (thus it sucked)". Deluge didn't say that Bay should have adhered to more of the original show. The former of the two assumptions is reasonable, the latter is a (mild) reach based on what he typed: "that's not the show I grew up to love" can be interpreted one of many ways. At the very least, "it was different", not necessarily it was "deeper".

>the sacred cow argument is only a cop out to die-hard fans of
>the older show -- an implication that Bay ruined what once was
>great. well, Transformers was never great. it was a popular,
>childish cartoon with appealing character designs and no
>plot.

Nope, it's a cop-out where ever it's used. Your personal opinion of what the show was is what it is, but as a counter-argument to what Deluge said, it's a cop-out. "This movie is not for you" gets more to what Deluge said. It really isn't for us. Watching it proved that much, but you wouldn't have really gotten that idea until you saw it for yourself. There were hints of it when you saw the leaked designs, the trailer, etc. But you really can't get enough of a picture of what a movie will be until you watch it. Before then, one could be of the idea that "oh, they're just cashing in on 1980s bullshit". Which was more or less their original aim. They lucked up that the "2010 Camaro" / "Megan Fox" factor succeeded in selling it to the younger audience.

cashing in on nostalgia would be replicating the 80's cartoon -- exploiting fans' delusional feelings towards a childhood memory by recreating that same universe.

Bay did not do that. he simply used the franchise as a vehicle for his own ideas. do you think every movie based on an old book is created to pry on nostalgia?

the proof is in the film's success. it appealed to pretty much everybody OUTSIDE the circle of nostalgia.

as for what Deluge (and other fanboys are feeling) posted -- are we reading the same thing? he wrote "explosions and laughs...thats not the transformers i grew up to love". what was the original then, exactly? a spellbinder filled with mature themes, clever dialogue and grandiose expositions into the difference between man and robot?

of course it wasn't! the 80's cartoon was cool robots and explosions that appealed foremost to the pre-teen male mind. the end.

furthermore, I don't understand your use of this "cop-out". I'm not saying Bay gets a pass for making a similarly mediocre movie when the the original cartoon wasn't great. but for older fans to imply that the original cartoon was perfect source material (as is) for a great modern movie -- yes, that's a cop-out.

--------

>cashing in on nostalgia would be replicating the 80's cartoon
>-- exploiting fans' disillusioned feelings towards a childhood
>memory by recreating that same universe.

not necessarily. It would have been that much more obvious.

>Bay did not do that. he simply used the franchise as a vehicle
>for his own ideas. do you think every movie based on an old
>book is created to pry on nostalgia?

He used a nostalgic franchise as a vehicle for his own ideas. He made this film because he had nostalgic ideas of TF which he then molded into his own image. It started with a nostalgic thought.

This is not always the case (i.e. old books); in this case, it definitely is. The Transformers (as a property) is a distinct period piece, something that can be easily tied to the 1980s. Where s a book, can be written in one era, reflect the feelings/ideas of a particular era, but can not be so deeply entrenched in the time of when/how it was written. Something like the Transformers is way too much identifiable with the era. To add, '80s culture has been "in" for a good part of this decade, or at least the romanticized version of such.

Even if the end product does not bear any real resemblance to the '80s version, the idea in and of itself was an attempt of bringing back those memories. Same as the G.I. Joe movie that's coming out this year, and the rumblings about all those other '80s shows resurrected from the dead. We've got a bunch of '80s kids running popular culture now. Bay didn't come up with the idea of transforming robots (or rather, the "Transformers" as stated, as the "transforming robot" idea is much older than that). Had he made this film in say... 1991 or so, when it would not have been a "good" idea (investment wise)? Maybe The Doc would be able to buy the idea that this whole thing wasn't jumped off a nostalgic idea/meant to cash in on that.

On the other hand, looking at Star Trek, The Doc doesn't think it was really a case of "nostalgic resurrection" because unlike Transformers, it had remained in some kind of high-visibility form (movies, references in other TV series, etc) through the '70s, '80s, '90s and '00s. Transformers (in the US) had more or less been in "pop culture" stasis until this decade.

Selling TF on a grand-scale (i.e. outside of the toy-buying sector) as Bay was attempting to do with the idea of this movie doesn't quite strike The Doc as anything else but nostalgic.

>the proof is in the film's success. it appealed to pretty much
>everybody OUTSIDE the circle of nostalgia.

that is sort of irrelevant to what The Doc was arguing. It's not who bought into it, or how the movie was marketed, just the idea of relaunching that franchise on the silver screen in the midst of an '80s nostalgia boom in the first place = nostalgia. They lucked up.

>as for what Deluge (and other fanboys are feeling) posted --
>are we reading the same thing? he wrote "explosions and
>laughs...thats not the transformers i grew up to love". what
>was the original then, exactly? a spellbinder filled with
>mature themes, clever dialogue and grandiose expositions into
>the difference between man and robot?

Dunno. Why not ask Deluge what he thinks about it? It's just not necessarily true that he thinks ALL (or even some) of those things about the original show. He just maybe thought the original show was more entertaining than a bunch of "explosions and laughs". Not necessarily on a deeper, more intellectual level, but on an "entertainment" level. Maybe the explosions and the laughs WERE better in the original show to Deluge.

>of course it wasn't! the 80's cartoon was cool robots and
>explosions that appealed foremost to the pre-teen male mind.
>the end.

Your opinion, but you said you were on the "precipice" of remembering the old show earlier, so maybe you don't understand it/feel the same way as Deluge did.

>furthermore, I don't understand your use of this "cop-out".
>I'm not saying Bay gets a pass for making a similarly mediocre
>movie when the the original cartoon wasn't great. but for
>older fans to imply that the original cartoon was perfect
>source material (as is) for a great modern movie -- yes,
>that's a cop-out.

It's a cop-out because you assumed that that's where his line of thought was. Maybe his argument was, perhaps that wasn't the best idea to make it into a modern movie in the first place, based on what he said. The only real concrete thing The Doc can pull out of what he said is "Bay's movie sucks because it just blows up shit and has cheap laughs". The rest is open for interpretation.

movies-wise, we've seen several of franchises from that period relaunched lately, if perhaps only in my subconscious.

that being said, the people who saw it, and how it was made, *are* relevant to the point of nostalgia. millions didn't see Transformers because they had fond memories of a cartoon. they saw it because it was the a cool-looking summer action film, directed by a man who has a long record of success in that genre (which was not luck).

it's not as if Transformers has such a devoted, huge following that got sucked into seeing the movie on name alone and ended up with a Michael Bay movie. people wanted to see a Michael Bay movie that ended up being based on a cartoon.

and you're spinning what Deluge posted. hoard.

he wrote Transformers is not just explosions and laughs. and that a movie made on the original Transformers would have been just as successful.

those two statements, which I've heard a dozen times before from others, is hitting exactly on the crux of my argument -- "Bay ruined a once proud franchise/memory". why? because he made a movie that follows the same plotless, action-intense, cut-out characters as a cartoon aimed at boy children?

--------

>that being said, the people who saw it, and how it was made,
>*are* relevant to the point of nostalgia. millions didn't see
>Transformers because they had fond memories of a cartoon. they
>saw it because it was the a cool-looking summer action film,
>directed by a man who has a long record of success in that
>genre (which was not luck).

"Cool summer action film"? Yeah.
"Directed by Bay"? No.

Shia LeBouf, Megan Fox, and the new Camaro most likely sold that film more than Bay's track record did.

Moviebuffs are more inclined to see a film based on its director than the casual filmgoer. Bay doesn't have that "Scorcese" notoriety, or a "Tarantino" name to himself yet, ITDO. "Summer action film" makes more sense in this regard than anything else.

>it's not as if Transformers has such a devoted, huge following
>that got sucked into seeing the movie on name alone and ended
>up with a Michael Bay movie. people wanted to see a Michael
>Bay movie that ended up being based on a cartoon.

don't really agree here. It wasn't really sold as a "Bay" film (he got billing, but The Doc doesn't think that's what primarily put asses in the seats; the Spielberg association had more clout than he did, plus the aforementioned LeBouf/Fox+ action flick factor). It couldn't really break away from the "nostalgia" factor since they used the original Optimus Prime voice actor from the cartoon, used the old transforming sound, etc. in the film/trailers/ads.... those watching had an idea as to what the film was going to be about, even if they weren't familiar with the old source material.

>and you're spinning what Deluge posted. hoard.

Not really. No more than you spun it, anyway.

>he wrote Transformers is not just explosions and laughs. and
>that a movie made on the original Transformers would have been
>just as successful.
>
>those two statements, which I've heard a dozen times before
>from others, is hitting exactly on the crux of my argument --
>"Bay ruined a once proud franchise/memory". why? because he
>made a movie that follows the same plotless, action-intense,
>cut-out characters as a cartoon aimed at boy children?

You can't really say that film follows the same characters as the cartoon, when the characters in question are hardly in the film to begin with. The article Frank linked in the original post (and just about everyone who has "criticized" the film) has said as much. While The Doc doesn't doubt the sentiment of which you speak exists, it may not be necessarily what Deluge is saying. It's not really clear what "more than explosions and laughs" are, just that "the old show wasn't like the film and was better". At the very least, the old show actually featured those "robot" characters more prominently than they did in the film.

If they sold a summer action flick based on the original Transformers theme (i.e. more robots, less .... other stuff), who's to say it wouldn't sell if they are more or less equal on "artistic" grounds?

he makes summer hits, period. Bad Boys, hit. Bad Boys II, hit. The Rock, hit. Pearl Harbor, hit. Armageddon, hit. his only dud was The Island.

moviegoers may not know Bay by name, but he has a style proven to be successful -- Transformers was the norm for him, not some lucky aberration. plus, who cares what directors moviebuffs deem prestigious? that’s irrelevant to box office success.

as for Deluge's post, you might as well just speak for yourself, because that’s how much you're spinning it ("maybe he meant Transformers shouldn’t be made into a modern movie" – lol, uh, he wrote it should have, just more like the OG. "maybe he meant...").

since I’m assuming your twisting of his words are your own thoughts, let me ask you: the main difference that made Bay's version so inferior to the cartoon was his lack of robots? he had the explosions and laughs down, he just needed more Dinobots? or do you mean Bay should have focused more on the one-note character development shown during 22-minute cartoons?

that's the deal-breaker?

--------

>moviegoers may not know Bay by name, but he has a style proven
>to be successful -- Transformers was the norm for him, not
>some lucky aberration. plus, who cares what directors
>moviebuffs deem prestigious? that’s irrelevant to box office
>success.

...how do they know his movies? Did they advertise it as "from the guy that brought you (those movies)..." or did they sell the movie as "an action packed extravaganza"? A lot of the adverts relating that film (when they didn't come from the product placement within the film, tended to put the action first and foremost. Bay wasn't the selling point of that film.


>as for Deluge's post, you might as well just speak for
>yourself, because that’s how much you're spinning it ("maybe
>he meant Transformers shouldn’t be made into a modern movie" –
>lol, uh, he wrote it should have, just more like the OG.
>"maybe he meant...").
>
>since I’m assuming your twisting of his words are your own
>thoughts, let me ask you: the main difference that made Bay's
>version so inferior to the cartoon was his lack of robots? he
>had the explosions and laughs down, he just needed more
>Dinobots? or do you mean Bay should have focused more on the
>one-note character development shown during 22-minute
>cartoons?
>
>that's the deal-breaker?

Not going to dignify this condescending gobbledygook w/a thought-out answer.

Instead, have the following:

Nigga, fuck you. Thrice.

If The Doc was really imparting his own thoughts in response to the comment that set this whole thread off, he would have asked these questions:

- What makes what you think of the source material as it relates to Deluge's opinion grounds for a valid dismissal?

- If a film is being based on an existing intellectual property, why is it unreasonable for a fan of the source material not to see something that resembles it more than in name alone?

At the very least, we can agree your perception and Deluge's perception of the source material -vastly- differ.

You seem to be saying Deluge can't be mad at the Bay movie being shit because the show is shit (of the same, if not a similar grade).

The Doc says Deluge has every right to be mad @ the movie. Not just because Deluge is a fan of the Transformers cartoon show, either.

Even if The Doc knew nothing about Transformers going into that film, had he watched it, he would have come to the same conclusion as he did watching it.

what's not to get? first, I'd contend more people know about Bay then you insinuate, and furthermore, it's his visuals and action pieces that are a *known* commodity.

the man has a formula of making blockbuster action movies, one that has worked to great success over the past decade, and now all-of-sudden his latest hit was lucky? it depended on a f--ing Corvette and no-name sex object who's done nothing else in her career? lol.

as for the movie itself, I have no problems with people critiquing it. but to say the movie sucked because it didn't adhere to the conventions of the original cartoon -- I find that dubious.

I still haven't heard a pointed example of why the original Transformers was radically different from what Bay put on the screen: both versions featured heavy action, thin plots, one-liners and flat dialogue. art design is the only change I can think of.

so if you can, please tell me what the original Transformers TV series did that was so radically different or much improved compared to Bay's movie. aside from the modified character designs, I don't see any possible answer that's not clouded by nostalgia.

--------

>what's not to get? first, I'd contend more people know about
>Bay then you insinuate, and furthermore, it's his visuals and
>action pieces that are a *known* commodity.

It's a 'known' commodity just because it has been so successful and so aped. We know a Michael Bay movie because we are all pop culture geeks...if I walked out now and asked random people who he was they would have no idea...even though they love his movies. I remember when Kill Bill came out, some of the advertisements simply said 'Tarantino'. Or for a more modern version, M. Night. Hell Bruckheimer is probably as big a name as Bay's, which tells more about the kind of movie he makes then his asthetic.

>so if you can, please tell me what the original Transformers
>TV series did that was so radically different or much improved
>compared to Bay's movie. aside from the modified character
>designs, I don't see any possible answer that's not clouded by
>nostalgia.

Again, like Claw said above the TV shows were all about the interpersonal interaction between the robots themselves: Spike simply served as a device for the kids to have something they can relate to. Even beyond the action pieces you had Starscreams constant jockeying and betrayal of Megatron, different factions (Quintessicons, Dinobots), etc. All this was missing in the first film. To make another comparison, it's like if the Matrix sequels focused on a lone gunner fighting off the waves of those flying machine Octopuses. Would that be a worse movie then those crappy sequels? Probably not. However, it lost a big chunk of what attracted people to the brand in the first place (Neo using his powers to kick ass videogame style). Even the fights themselves in the first movie were less about two robots fighting to the death, but as an excuse to destroy the setpieces around them in a spectacular fashion.

both here and in England seem to have expanded even further off these characterizations. Isn't this sequel based off one of the comic story lines?

And to think Transfans are just the people who hold on to fond memories of G1 that's a bit of a mistake. There's a rather large cross generational as well as international following for the franchise. Whether here in the US, UK or Japan, since the creation of the show in 1984 ( I'm not even going to get into the original Japanese toy line that Hasbro scavenged to get the Transformers...) there has been some kind of animation, toy or comic set in this universe and across several different incarnations.

While I'm not saying all the people that went to see the movie were intimately familiar with the show and it's characters or that they all make a pilgrimage to Botcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BotCon) to get the Sideswipe exclusive, the shows, toys and their premise are so ingrained into popular culture on a international level that it was bound to do numbers and not necessarily because Bay was at the helm.

my point is Michael Bay movies are successful in what they try to accomplish. the public likes Michael Bay movies. I'm not arguing his name has huge clout alone (besides, a lot of good that did Tarantino for Grindhouse) -- I was countering Claw's statement that Transformers was successful because of a few lucky confluences aside from Bay.

as far as the original Transformers versus Bay's....

so like I said above, the first film just needed more Dinobots (whose existence in itself is pretty hilarious as an integral aspect)? that episode I linked previously had Dinobots -- are we being serious by saying *that* would have made a far superior Transformers movie?

action-wise, your complaints seem more personal than grounded in fundamental difference. considering the same robots ended up fighting each other most episodes, I really don't see the cartoon had more of a "to the death" angle.

Starscream though -- I agree. it'd be another mini plotline woven into an already too long movie, but his betrayals could have been included.

--------

Nobody needs an excuse to go see Bay/Bruckhiemer giant summer explosions, but at the same time they knew that having the Transformers name would have a built in audience. I remember them leaking info along development to AintItCoolNews...which could have easily backfired but they knew that if they are able to get a hardcore geek audience behind them, they can build from it as a base. Big summer movie without the name? Most likely. Bigger summer movie with the name? Absolutely.

>as far as the original Transformers versus Bay's....
>
>so like I said above, the first film just needed more Dinobots
>(whose existence in itself is pretty hilarious as an integral
>aspect)? that episode I linked previously had Dinobots -- are
>we being serious by saying *that* would have made a far
>superior Transformers movie?

Not superior, but it would have made it a Transformers movie as opposed to generic robots fighting each other. To me, you took the stance that 'It's got robots, bad acting, a few big fights, looks the same to me!' What I am saying is that there are things happening in the cartoon that gave it a feel, which was completely missing from the movie. Going back to Star Trek, most of the Trekkies gave it good reviews because despite the flaws it captured the 'feel' of the original series. Even beyond the bad acting/animation/script of the original cartoon there was a feel to the series that would make you not confuse it with lets say Voltron. The movie lost that when they decided to focus on a love triangle between Spike, his hot girlfriend, and his new car.


>
>action-wise, your complaints seem more personal than grounded
>in fundamental difference. considering the same robots ended
>up fighting each other most episodes, I really don't see the
>cartoon had more of a "to the death" angle.

I just used it as an example to point out how impersonal the robots were, even in battle. Like, Bumblebee, the biggest character outside of Optimus Prime in the cartoon is a mute in the movie. Where the series focused on the robots above all things with Spike being a bit player at best, in the movie it's the exact opposite.

Where they would be a scene of two robots trash talking and escalating it to violence and beating the snot out of each other; in the movie there's no real talk: suddenly robots are fighting quick edit style for a second before the camera pans back and shows you collateral damage and humans running for their lives.

no the original series wasn't 'high-art'
the original series was a cartoon to sell toys
robot toys at that
but apart from the explosions and laughs in that
it was about robots... about transformers

bay's film was like any other bay film
the rock, bad boys, armageddon
just some robots added in

like someone said up here it's like people say robots.. check, explosions... check, bad acting... check. alright it's the same!

remember kevin smith's story about being brought on to write superman and the ideas that jon peters had about superman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

thats how i feel about this franchise
like claw said up there just leave it alone
u want to make an action movie with robots? cool do it but no need to call it transformers if its not transformers

i would have liked to see the robots at least look more like they originally did. its been proven by fanboys already that that would be possible with cgi and look cool too
it wouldnt have made a difference in the story bay's presenting so why not give the fans that?

megatron didnt have to be a gun but look at how the hell he DID look
that shit is just retarded to me
its using a nostalgic succesful franchise and just taking it's name and general feel and run with it

stuff like when they were on air force one and the campy ass bush was stuff that was too much too

and ofcourse the whole movie was about humans instead of being about robots

￭￭￭￭

>i would have liked to see the robots at least look more like
>they originally did. its been proven by fanboys already that
>that would be possible with cgi and look cool too
>it wouldnt have made a difference in the story bay's
>presenting so why not give the fans that?

Bay completely disregarded the original art design. and that's what people have memories attached to -- not the flimsy stories or robot characterization, but the "look" of the old cartoon.

when Bay abandoned that look entirely, that's when the legions turned on him. the movie's failings in plot or length were not the main contentions, just more reasons to hate Bay for changing the look of the original cartoon.

--------

He does a better job focusing on the robots at the start of Fallen but the movie still falls flat on its ass

>see it just like they did that shit star trek movie

the reviews, from the "old guard" and noobs alike sounded mostly favorable.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.

<--- Big Baller World Order

1. I've got money riding on Optimus Prime mentioning "Twitter".

2. Bay gave Devestator a pair of balls. As in testicles. Keep an eye out for them.

.imageyenation.dot.com.

1) Devastator does nothing cool..........and he has nuts.

2) Jetfire has walking stick!!

3) The Egypt section of the movie is dull

4) The Shia/Megan love thing is even more corny

5) THe first hlf is nice, with some funny bits.

6) Mudflaps has a gold tooth

7) The Fallen gets murked waaaaayy too easy

8) Loads of the transformers get no explanation/character/dialogue/names even mentioned.

9) The action is good and crap - When Optimus is in hand to hand combat - it's awesome. The gunplay in Egypt - meh.

10) I foun myself thinking "I'm bored" part way through.

11) Special effects are great.

12) Why can Bumblebee not talk again? and why is he like a pet?

13) Shia has a near death experience that is so corny I can barely believe it - even with Bay at the helm.

All in all, it was ok, first half I enjoyed, second half was eh.

"I'm honest to a fault and it's my fault I'm that honest" - Vast

jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRB7MHCxJh4

i'm through

Get out the room,
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893

Situation Podemy love

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/situation-podemy/id620232249

Situation Podemy : www.situationpodemy.wordpres

http://www.cracked.com/article_17513_one-transformer-youll-never-see-in-movies-comic.html

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

The opening sentence is an outstanding piece of anger.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-michael-bay-147-mins-12abrgigantic-matt-aselton-97-mins-15-1711232.html

Not wishing to overstate the case, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the pretentious, nonsensical, sexist, jingoistic, militaristic, CGI-dependent, product-placement-packed, hectically edited, punishingly loud, wearyingly long, eye-wateringly expensive, and, I predict, phenomenally profitable exemplar of everything that is most repulsive about Hollywood today.

Perhaps its most unforgivable crime is that it lasts two and a half hours, despite being a sequel to a tie-in to a 1980s range of toys. What happens during that Dr Zhivago-rivalling running time? Nothing as consequential as characterisation or coherent plotting, that's for sure.

T:RotF opens with a prologue set in 17,000BC (told you it was pretentious), and there is endless gobbledegook about "The All-Spark" and "The Matrix of Leadership", but it boils down to some alien goodie robots called the Autobots fighting some alien baddie robots called the Decepticons.

As the mass destruction is all rendered on computer, it's about as thrilling as watching a firework display on TV through someone else's sitting room window, especially as the rock 'em sock 'em robots are all largely identical. The exceptions are Optimus Prime, the pompous leader of the good guys, and two sidekicks with Afro-American voices who are always blundering and jive-talking the way those wacky Afro-Americans do.

On the human side of the cast list, Shia LaBeouf is back playing a teenager who would rather be an ordinary university student than a planet-saving hero (yeah, right). His girlfriend is played by the pouting Megan Fox, who's subjected to camerawork so leering it makes her frequent GQ and FHM photo-shoots look like school graduation portraits. This dirty-old-man treatment makes you wonder what the age of the target audience is supposed to be.

Half of T:RotF seems to have been made for undemanding children, and yet there are more references to male genitalia than you'd get in a series of South Park, while the film's main comic setpiece has the hero's mother swallowing a bag of marijuana and then informing strangers that she overheard him losing his virginity. There may even be a scene in which John Turturro whips his trousers off and reveals the thong he's wearing underneath, but I might have imagined it. I hope I didn't.

The film's political stance is revolting, too, which won't come as a surprise if you've seen Bad Boys II, Pearl Harbor, or any other films by the same director, Michael Bay.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Autobots and the Decepticons are said to be alien beings who have thoughts and feelings just as we do. That being the case, what are we supposed to make of a scene in which Optimus Prime summarily executes an incapacitated Decepticon? And what about the delightful skit in which the heroine prises information from a Decepticon by ramming a soldering iron into its eye? Coming soon from Michael Bay: a torture porn film based on the Care Bears.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I won't be surprise.

...agreed...its horrible...

Integrity is the Cornerstone of Artistry...

...he drops the ball again by not including a cat fight between Fox & Isabel Lucas.

And the worst part is that he completely sets the stage for it to happen. Hot ass blonde lookin to take Fox's spot & we can't even get a scene of these bitches dukin it out?!?!?

I mean of ALL the fucking lame ass fights in this flick where you can't even tell what's goin on, this muthafucka couldn't give us some hair pullin, titty twistin, camel toe clutchin girl fight?!?!?

He fuckin blew it.

It's not even really worth puttin up a review after that but I'm pretty sure I was enjoying the movie up until that missed opportunity about 45 minutes in. It seemed to have more focus on the robots instead of the humans & the action was pretty slick as well. But after that it was more of same lame jokes & scrapheap shots. They could've done a better job covering up the injury to Shia's hand as well.

As far as the new bots:

Too much jibber jabber from Jetfire but good choice on the jet.

Devestator probably should've had his name changed to Quasimotor. You'd think Bay would want to make a bigger spectacle of all the Constructicons coming together. Instead it looks like any other transformer only hunchback.

Soundwave as a Satellite was pretty sick. As was the Dr. Claw voice & Ravage.

I started doin a watch check about an hour & a half in & the 10 year old I took was restless as well.

Montezuma's"

greatest opening line of a review ever

(CNN) -- "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" -- the most terrible revenge since Montezuma's -- is louder, longer and lamer than the 2007 hit it succeeds.

Which is saying a lot.

Long story short: The Decepticons are back, fixed on destroying Sam (Shia LaBeouf), Optimus Prime and the Earth, in that order.

Produced by Hasbro -- the accompanying trailer for "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" suggests that the company's not-exactly-subtle strategy is to mass market war toys for boys -- "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a grotesque exercise in hyperinflation. At 149 minutes, it's longer than "2001," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" or "Star Wars." In fact, this may be the emptiest epic ever made.

Director Michael Bay is famous for blowing things up, but you could invade a small country with less firepower than he expends on this extended-length commercial.

For all his sound and fury, Bay isn't much of an action director. There's no rhythm in his slam-bang cutting, no discipline in his orientation, and there's so little to distinguish an Autobot (the good Transformers) from a Decepticon (the bad) that at any given moment, it's a toss-up who is pulverizing who.

More in the link...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/23/review.transformers.revenge/index.html?eref=rss_showbiz

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
June 23, 2009

by Roger Ebert

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.

The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock. They share the film with human characters who are much more interesting, and that is very faint praise indeed.

More in the link...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

Bey is a hack

"hey, make this right mayne
stop at the light mayne,
my yester night thang got me hung off the night train "

nm

Got-DAYUM Roj...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_fall_of_the_revengers.html
________________________________________________________________________

.......

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

__________
http://leswrite.com/

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

The fuckin Twins got waaay too much screen time. Without them and that bitch ass Leo, it would have been more tolerable. The only thing you cant front on is the CGI. The part with Devestator and the pyramid was crazy.

yeah those twins ...no comment, Leo character was bitchmade.
But overall it was I expected cool summer flick with tons of action,laughs, explosion not rocket science....lol
__________________________________________________________
http://randywatsonculture.blgospot.com

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/centerembed-1

they hated it...

........

404 SIG NOT FOUND.

Niggas are being nitpicky and gay.

It was dope.

----------------------------

http://www.dkmsamericas.org/register-today-and-help-save-natasha-and-others


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.


"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Yep, fuck the critics

you can"t front on it
__________________________________________________________
http://randywatsonculture.blgospot.com

It was, to a degree, a very entertaining movie, but it was in no way, shape, or form, a GOOD movie. Take the Bay hate/sacred cow/this-ain't-your-father's-Transformers argument and the 'that shit's racist' angle (and it's a good one) and put it to the side for a minute and look at it from it's own merit (as best you can). The plot? What plot? The movie could have been cut to 90 minutes with the same effect. So much stuff just didn't make sense or was plain stupid - Megatron just popping up in and out of battles, at the warehouse to cut Sam up, flying to Cybertron (maybe? or Saturn, hard to tell) a robot transforming into a human, the army of 'red shirt' Decepticons/Fallen (or whatever the hell they were), the Matrix of Leadership / dream sequence bullshit, Jetfire being a SR-71 (cool, but still, WTF?!?), invisible space bridges, the most secure naval base in the US being outdone by a robotic cat with a mouthful of marbles (really?). Why the hell go thru kidnapping and torturing Sam (should have just cut his head off) when you end up just following him to the spot in the end anyway? They hi-jack the airwaves and nobody seems the least bit concerned, scared, or has a clue where the fuck Sam is? Why the hell do you kidnap his parents? Robot balls?

I could go on, but you get the point. The action set pieces were for the most part, very good. But even so, we have problems. Optimus got his man in this movie, plain and simple. So did Bee. The others? Bit players at best. How the hell The Twinz get more screentime than Ironhide or Ratchet? There were cool touches, but they seemed to be wasted. Like the return of Soundwave, who we really didn't get to see do too much but bear hug a satellite. Devastator was HUGE, but he really could have been used to do more than fuss with the Twinz and smash a pyramid. The opening fight scene, the forest fight scene, Bee vs. Ravage, Super Optimus vs. the Fallen? Pretty bad ass. But damn it if you couldn't tell who was fighting who half the time. I thought for sure Megatron bought it in the forest until Prime got the Ultimate Shive (the whole theatre went silent after that) Giant robots and explosions. Hard to fault that by itself...

So, it was fantastic, but crap. It will still make a zillion dollars, and I'll still get it on Blu-Ray just to see what the hell was going on, but it was crap. And I still enjoyed myself

Star Trek was better by light years.


Now, about how fucking racist it was.....

<-- Dave Thomas knows what's up...
__________________________

Jay: Look here homie, any nigga can get a hit record. This here is about respect.
Game: Like Gladys Knight.
Jay: Aretha Franklin.
Game: Word, I like her too.
Jay: Nigga...

> a robot transforming into a human
http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Pretender

>the army of 'red shirt'Decepticons/Fallen (or whatever the hell they were)
http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Protoform

>Like the return of Soundwave, who we really didn't get to see do too much but bear hug a satellite.
Maaaan that pissed me off!!

>Devastator was HUGE, but he really could have been used to do more than fuss with the Twinz and smash a pyramid.
That pissed me off too

>Star Trek was better by light years.
Funny that this was written by the same guys. The director can make or break a movie.