Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Golden Age, Jun 23, 2009.
Do you think that all the reviewers are just "Geewunnerrs"?
I would say more along the lines of hateful, fat fanboys that are virgins and live in their mom's basement.
And they kick puppies for fun.
Im thinkin Micheal Bay Haters.
Movie kicked ass, end of story.
No, a lot of them simply dismissing the idea of a film that has its basest roots in a 80s toyline.
A sentiment once felt towards adaptations of comic books.
Plus a lot of reviewers seem to expect depth from a Micheal Bay film. It just isn't going to happen.
Not really, but it is pretty clear that critics are still on the bay-hate fad.
There's also the fact that they all went to a TEENAGER pop-corn flick with Schindler's List level of expectation.
Is that the best defense of the film that you can give? At least that other guy had the crazy conspiracy angle. You aren't even trying.
You gotta give credit to shrooby tho. His use of hyperbole is excellent! Kelchy would be proud. Now if only shrooby would start putting words in other people's mouths, he could take over for kelschy full time!
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
Definitely Geewunners would be in the minority. People like Ebert probably don't know/give a crap that Bumblebee was a VW Bug back in 1984, etc.
I certainly hope so cause my sarcasm detector was apparently turned when reading that.
No, they're not 'geewunners'. It's just tons of ignorant people who expect stupid stuff like intelligent writing & dialogue, acting ability, characterization, cohesion, story, the desire to somewhat decypher what they're looking it, and apparently something that only elite industry insiders know of called... a "plot". I'm not sure what that is, but supposedly it can have a lot of mile wide holes if not addressed seriously. It's all a little too rocket science for me to completely understand, so I'm as mystified as anyone as to what these "reviewers" are talking about. Just because they're paid good money, have made careers out of doing it, are respected in most circles and even hailed for their ability to remain objective, have been fundamentally necessary to the movie & music industries as far back as when newspapers were invented, have entire publications built around their existence, can & do make or break careers, and have been THE go-to places for the general public to get an informed opinion for decades, I don't think they really mean all that much to anyone or anything. No, it's forums built for biased fans of toys, comics & sci-fi filled with equally biased 13-40 year old armchair critics that really give the honest & objective opions.
And there is no bay-love, geewunner hate-fad I suppose?
Maybe directors are disliked for a reason.
Bay already said to ignore the reviews, besides if you are a true fan, your in it for the Robots. TF1 also received bad reviews.
Ebert liked the first one and the guy at AICN is a self proclaimed Bay fanatic, both hated it. Is it not possible that it's just not a good movie?
So long as critics aren't adding "btw you're a mushminded fart of a waste of oxygen if you dared to enjoy this flick" on the end of their reviews, I don't see why one can't just enjoy the movie regardless.
All criticisms and praises are valid to be stated so long as you don't insult someone for disagreeing with you.
Ebert didn't like the robot action in tf1 and tf2 has more of that so ebert didn't like tf2 cause of it which is just silly imo.
Oh absolutely. I have no doubt in my mind that everyone that offered up a review on RottenTomatoes.com all grew up around the 1984-1986 era and that the original cartoon was foremost on their mind when offering up a judgment regarding this cinema. All of them.
I certainly believe this. Positively.
I wish everyone thought like you.
Unfortunately they don't.
Separate names with a comma.