For anyone that watched the Oscars, do you think Transformers should've been in the 90 Years Promo?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by transf0, Mar 4, 2018.

  1. siccoyote

    siccoyote Worst side of the fandom

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Posts:
    4,103
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,308
    Ebay:
    I don't remember seeing any clip of The Matrix in there either or as people have said any number of popular films, The original Bayformers film was popular at the time among a certain demographic, pretty much kids to nerds in their early 30s.

    As a first generation (ocay I didn't get in till the Special Teams came out) fan who had stayed loyal and fanatical to the franchise all the way from 85 till 03 (Armada kicked me out, but the flame was still alive) I felt the original Bay move was just about enjoyable despite it's many many faults. But seeing the reactions from people around me at the time in the next few months I felt it was supremely over-rated.

    It's notthe kid of movie that should really show up in an oscar montage celebrating great cinema.
     
  2. agent j 15

    agent j 15 poopity-scoop

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Posts:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +312
    No because they're bad movies
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. transf0

    transf0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Posts:
    367
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +443
    I would say that but multiple Pixar films and Iron Man was in there. So that's kids and the aging 30 year old demo.
     
  4. karamazov80

    karamazov80 Million Dollar Champion

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Posts:
    1,574
    Trophy Points:
    212
    Likes:
    +202
    This is the moment I lost faith in the Oscars. . .damn you, Oscars. Dam you straight to hell.
     
  5. siccoyote

    siccoyote Worst side of the fandom

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Posts:
    4,103
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,308
    Ebay:
    Except Pixar movies and even to an extent the marvel movies and enjoyed by a much group and acknowledged as good films, rather than being despised outside of the prime demographic.
     
  6. transf0

    transf0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Posts:
    367
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +443
    The first film is universally recognized as good by the general moviegoing public.
     
  7. Galvatross

    Galvatross Swamp Lord Shrek-traoridinairre! Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Posts:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +4,862
    There is no such thing as a film that is universally recognized as good. If if it were universal that means literally everyone thought it was good. All of the films have had vocal detractors.

    You could say, "Generally more well-regarded than the other films by the American public," but the American public is not the entire universe. I'm a part of the part of the American public, and while I do enjoy the first film, I don't think it's better than most of the other films.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    25,214
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    372
    Likes:
    +2,735
    Yeah, no.

    It made a ton of money, was generally a hit, but it is far, FAR from universally recognized as "good".

    According to the thrice-cursed Rotten Tomatoes (may ten thousand moths descend on their closets), for example, only 85% of people thought it was good.
     
  9. transf0

    transf0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Posts:
    367
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +443
    When metacritic uses its' universally acclaimed designation it does not mean there is no one in the universe who doesn't like it. For these purposes, it was (85% RT.)
     
  10. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    25,214
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    372
    Likes:
    +2,735
    That's a silly name for that metric then, to be frank, and you should probably not use it in normal conversation.

    For the record, metacritic currently lists the 2007 Transformers film at 61/100, "generally favourable", not "universally acclaimed".

    Transformers


    Also worth noting for people that aren't familiar with the sites, that metacritic uses an average of 1-100 scores across multiple critics, whereas RTs rating is the percentage of critics/audience that deemed the film "good" rather than "bad" (a proportion of positive binary ratings). They're fairly different approaches, and are not necessarily equivalent.

    For example, if 10/10 critics all rated Transformers at around 65%, it would likely show as a 100% Fresh film on RT. If 3/10 rated the film at 40%, 3 at 55%, and 4 at 75%, Metacritic would (probably) show a rating of 59%, and RT would show 40%. Metacritic is a rating of how good the film is, RT is a rating of what portion of the audience thought it was good.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  11. transf0

    transf0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Posts:
    367
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +443
    I understand the dichotomy between the two and have written extensively about it before. I'm saying that universally acclaimed is a term that doesn't mean NO ONE objects to it. A large majority of the general population views the film favorably. Acclaim is advocation/positive sentiment. I wasn't equating RT=Meta scores, just saying the term is used not in a literal sense. I'd say not to take scores in a vacuum regardless and believe the general sentiment of the public today towards the first one is acclaim.
     
  12. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    25,214
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    372
    Likes:
    +2,735
    And I am saying you're using a term in a way that doesn't mean the same thing that the words its made up of would indicate, and is thus a silly term, and that you should stop using it outside of specific references to ratings on metacritic, and stop trying to shift the goalposts.

    "universal acclaim" means just what it sounds like (unless you're on metacritic, for some reason). Universal means the totality, all people. 85% is not universal. Hell, I could argue even acclaim is too strongly positive a term in this case, and that positive feelings on the TF film tended to be more middling than enthusiastic. We can keep doing this forever, not everyone liked the first TF film, even if it's widely regarded as the best of the franchise, and that's the pretty much the end of it.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page