Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Lateralus, Jun 24, 2009.
It makes me love it even more. Anyone else feel the same way?
No, that's completely ******ed high-school-I-wanna-be-different-just-like-everybody-else logic. Well worth starting a thread for though. Really.
Make more threads, tool.
Mystique owned you.
No, it just means I can enjoy something silly and ridiculous when I want to and not have my enjoyment of it ruined by other people's opinions.
So because many critics have made (valid) points against the movie, it makes the enjoyment of you liking it that much sweeter?
I'm sorry, but all this anti-critics behaviour just seems childish. The reviews i've read are pretty fair to be honest. This movie was pretty mind-numbing in places. With plotholes larger than the distance Megatron traveled through space.
I did enjoy the movie, it just had quite a few low points too. Don't hate critics for pointing these out.
Then don't read their opinions. Seems pretty simple.
Actually, I think the most enjoyable part is seeing the movie rake in hefty profits.
It shows that people do not give a crap what critics think, and will still spend good money to see it for themselves. That's good enough for me.
Critics loved Australia...... it then bombed at the box office....... Critics loved that Pit getting younger flick........ Everyone else found it a load of boring crud.
Critics suck......and i love it when they rave about a movie.... then watch as it bombs spectacularly
A critics job is to view a movie as a piece of art. If it a movie is not trying to be art at all what is wrong with a person stating that fact?
Wow, one post and we already have a winner!
Just because a movie bombs doesn't mean it's not good, it just means it didn't strike a cord with the general audience.
Likewise, just because a movie makes tons of money at the box office doesn't mean it's any good either.
Which is why I think that sort of reviewing is slightly flawed, for when you try to measure something up to a certain standard, it ceases to be objective.
Take a Van Gogh or Rembrant painting for example. Those are pieces of fine art. Whereas some sculpture made of recycled tin cans to be placed in the community garden is purely for ornamentation. Hence, you couldn't use the same parameters used to judge a Van Gogh when you want to judge that tin can sculpture, for it was never meant to be fine art in the first place.
Rather, look at it from the perspective of its intended objective. Does it convey the artist's creativity, does it represent something, does it fulfil its objective of brightening up that particular space in the garden, does it blend in well with the surrounding landscape.
I'm not hating critics per se, but I just feel that one shouldn't be bound by rigid guidelines on what makes a good film. There shouldn't be a "if its not intended to be a work of art, it automatically sucks" kind of thinking.
Being a food writer myself, I do lots of restaurant reviews. When I go to a 5-star fine dining outlet, I look out for good service, food presentation, cutlery arrangement, ambience, exquisite dishes, etc.
Whereas when I review a neighbourhood cafe, I look at it from a different perspective, does it make a good hang out spot, does it offer cheap and fast meals, does it make you feel at home, are there lots of choices that keep you coming back everyday, etc.
My ethos is simple, I do not have any preexisting standards which I use as a blanket checklist. Rather, I view it from the perspective of what its intended to be, and does it live up to its objectives.
While a set of cutlery put in the wrong place at a fine dining restaurant might lower my estimation of a that place, at the neighbourhood cafe it doesn't matter.
Don't get me wrong, Transformers isn't perfect, nor is it outstanding. But I just wish we would move away from the "if it doesn't have this, its crap" line of thought.
The problem with your argument here is that your reflecting on Van Gogh and Rembrandt as they are now after they have already been established as fine art. It would be unfair to compare anything hanging in a museum to something in a park because judgement has already been pased on one of them. But they were not fine art the day they were painted. Van Gogh didnt wake and say I'm going to make fine art today, he just painted and I'm sure at some point he was judged for what they were just paintings.
At some point every piece of art boils down to a person expressing them self through a medium. However, at some point hollywood decided to stop seeing movies as art and started looking at them as franchises to make a shitload of money. The summer blockbuster is what started the hate from movie critics of all mindless summer movies.
Your analogy of a 5 star restaurant versus a cafe doesn't sit right with me. If anything the 5 star restaurant is the winter oscar movies and the cafe is a small independent movie. TF2 isnt a cafe. It's a mcdonalds. It is processed food that lacks soul and no matter how good it tastes it's bad for you. People get mad at critics for the same reason we get mad at the guy who tells you how many calories are in your french fries. We know were enjoying eating crap and we dont want it ruined
I really don't care what the critics say. The only way you'll know is if you go to see the movie yourself. Sure, you're risking $5.00-$10.00 to see a movie, but it's only that small amount if the movie happens to bomb...
I wasn't using restaurant types to substitute movie types specifically, rather it was meant to illustrate differences between two different approaches on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
One is meant to be refined luxury, the other is a simplistic approach to feeding people.
On the movie side, its similar. On one hand, you have films which are made to be works of art, on the other hand there's summer blockbusters which are meant to entertain and make profits.
So I believe its flawed to judge summer blockbusters with a checklist you would normally use to grade artistic films.
Although it would be nice to see big budget action flicks that have deep meaning and artistic value, its a rarity. We seldom get the best of both worlds. It would be great if there was more, but from a realistic point of view its unlikely.
On to the point of people telling me how many calories are in my fries ..
I would say that analogy is flawed too. To me, its more like someone disliking a certain type of food, and telling me I would be stupid to like it.
We're all different with different tastes and preferences. So we cannot automatically assume that our taste is perfect, and that everything we like should be the gold standard.
I do not mind if someone doesn't like something, but I do mind when he makes sweeping generalizations that anyone who likes it falls in a certain IQ level.
You like women with big boobs without caring about the facial features. I like women with pretty faces. Would it be right if I claim you lack brains if you ignore the faces and love women based on her breast size alone? .. I think not.
This. And the fact that the entire room was in applause at the end of my screening.
it was not made for the critics. it was made for the people who like transformers. so yeah, it may have flaws but it will still be loved as a film for transformers enthusiasts. not everything has to be a deep story with a meaningful plot and well executed storytelling.
Critics loved Australia because they felt obliged to as it was a 'Baz Lurhman epic'.
If you read most of the reviews, there's some barely concealed hate there.
listening to critics is like listening to what celebrities have to say...who cares. im pumped for this movie!
Separate names with a comma.