Excuse me for sounding nitpicky, but most of the suggested "explanations" owe nothing to Transformers mythos, and honestly aren't really all that imaginative (Which may increase the probability of them being correct assumptions).

While I agree many points raised don't detract from the movie, for example, Scalpel's/ the Doctor's lenses; simply pointing out how futile it is to address the issue doesn't actually address it.

Clearly Scalpel uses lenses for the reason they were intended, magnification.   (Unimaginative, but highly probable).

 

The Whole pyramids and Jordan thing is not an geographic error. It suppose to be a fictional place.

 

This seems to be typical of the logic used by more extreme supporters of the movies.
Critic: This film doesn't seem to have much to do with the Transformers.
Extreme fan: Bay's making a film for everyone, not just the geewun fanbois! DUH!
Critic: The film also has a lot of plot holes.
EF: If you know about the Transformers mythos, it all makes sense, n00b!
Critic: But you said the film isn't just for Transformers fans.
EF: It's not! God, who'd make a film just for that small market?
Critic: But... wait, you're Michael Bay, aren't you?
EF/Bay: No! Why would you say that?
Critic: Your hair just exploded for no reason.
Bay: Curse you! Er... does anyone have a fire extinguisher?

 

Thank you, Godziboy1993, it's nice to know that there are people out there who aren't complete utter morons.

I was thinking about one of those "lolnitpick" articles the other and a lot of the stuff they nitpick had justifiable reasons for why they shouldn't be nitpicked.

Hell, even my non-hardcore friends weren't confused (and by "non-hardcore" I mean only fans of the movies [but they still respect G1  ])

 

Are you calling people who have issues with the plot morons?

Well, to hell with the question.

You are calling people who have issues with the plot morons.

 

It certainly looks that way. Perhaps Jetstorm would care to explain his comment, as I'm sure that wasn't what he meant.

 

Probably not. But people should be precise in their language.

 

Like I've said a million times before, if you really care about plot holes in a movie about giant shape-shifting space robots, then you need to get some perspective on life.

 

People shouldn't have to expect plot holes from a movie though, whether it be about giant shape shifting robots or not.

 

I really don't understand this attitude. I don't just want to see someone banging CGI toys together, I want to care about what happens. That only occurs if the film hangs together properly. Yeah, most films have a plot hole in them, but they're not riddled with the damn things.

 

I'm so glad I read this topic. Now I know that the reason I didn't like the new transformers movie is because I just wasn't sophisticated enough to appreciate the string of explosions, robot fart jokes, robot skanks and John Tuturro in a g string. I'm going to dedicate myself to the study of transformers so that I can better enjoy these features in other quality films.

 

Actually I can explain the plot holes better.

We had a writer's strike which put put production behind. Instead of saying fine we will bump the release date until sometime later in the year they decided they would keep the 4th of July release date no matter what. Then for some odd reason no one is bold enough to say we need to cut this from the film or to say if I didn't make this world would I understand these bits or do they need some explanation added.

If a person has to read the novels, the comic books, or the back of the toys to understand something about a film that's not the viewers fault that is just bad film making and thus a plot hole. Failing to catch something in editing that you should have caught is also the fault of the production company not the fault of the viewer.

Little gaffs in a film I don't mind like a character puts a soda on the table and the next time they pan to the table the drink is missing or little things like that. When logic really goes jumping out the window and it's not a comedy or I have to buy something else to explain some part of the film that's just bad plot holes.

 

It's partially the viewer's responsibility to look up information they missed they advertised all the comics and books in magazines, online etc.

Really it wouldn't kill anyone to take five minutes to read a 20 page comic. Or to use their imagination and come up with a solution that works. People need to understand that this isn't just fiction, it's science fiction.

I do agree though that many things could have been filled in if they cut back on a few things. They should have followed the novel (Which actually was the original script) and maybe it would have gotten more positive than negative reviews.

Many points made against the movie (Like those I pointed out in the OP) are just absurd. It's science fiction, a simple concept we have all encountered whether it's a TV show, a book, a movie, in school etc.

These movies were made for the fans because the fans demanded one to be made.

 

No.

 

Yeah, I mean wow... What line of thinking would make that right?

On the other hand, stuff like how Alice can turn into a human in the first place, and little character details that go unexplained, I suppose those could be saved for external media. Like how everyone in the cantina in Star Wars has a long and sordid past, but if you want to know about it, you have to read this book, or this trading card back.

 

ugh, another "someone talked about plot holes in ROTF so now I must make a thread and provide answers to them" threads

 

Ugh, another "OMG THIS MOVIE IS RIDDLED WITH PLOT HOLES" user.

Seriously would it kill anyone just to THINK for five seconds and come up with a reasonable solution to most of these so-called plot holes? Especially those who have watched the original G1 show regardless if they stayed a fan afterwards?

It's science fiction, more specifically the Transformers franchise. It's not rocket science.

 

Why should they have to? Why should anyone have to sit down and think "Right, this film is riddled with holes. How can I explain them all away?" That's the job of the people making the film.

 

Well... it really depends on the issues and the people  

 

I'd just like to say again that a lot of them aren't plot holes (eg Alice, everyone knowing about the battle in Mission City) so much as poor exposition in the film itself. The fact that there are explanation that aren't shown is down to the editting team, as opposed to being a plot hole.

The end product is the same either way - the audience at large is left wondering because they've not read any of the prequel stuff (which they shouldn't have to have done to get a cohesive picture from the movie)