TFW2005ers Response to Roger Ebert and Other Hatin Critics - Win $50 Gift Certificate

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Tony_Bacala, Jun 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony_Bacala

    Tony_Bacala Car Robots Professional Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2000
    Posts:
    11,707
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2,352
    Location:
    Illadelph
    Likes:
    +140
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Google+:
    Instagram:
    Flickr:
    YouTube:
    It seems that even though Transformers Revenge of the Fallen may have issues even us hardcore TF fans can't ignore, that the main stream media and critics seem to be blasting it a bit harder than usual. Not sure what's up with that.

    So lets use this thread to voice your opinion on what you think about all the hatin ass critics out there. Do your best to keep it constructive and reasonable. Try to do point counter point. If you speak about a particular review, reference it with a link. Humor is welcome. Just make the post interesting and let folks know why you as a Transformer fan think their analysis was bullshit.

    The best post within the next week will win a $50 USD Gift Certificate to StylinOnline.com!

    Stylin Online is sponsoring a series of contests here on TFW2005, running 1 per week until July 8th (4 total). Each week, Stylin Online will be giving away a gift certificate valued at 50 USD. Each Wednesday (or Thursday when we are slow asses) we will announce the previous week's winner, and reveal the next contest. All you need to do is be registered at TFW2005 and logged in to participate. 2005 Staff are not eligible.

    Get to talkin!

    UPDATE: DISASTER RECOVERY...

    OK, I guess either I didnt make myself clear, people didn't read the board rules, or we are all assholes. So let me clarify what the point of this thread was SUPPOSED to be before it devolved.

    It was meant for the folks that DID like the movie, who DISAGREED with what was perceived as the overly harsh mainstream critic response to the movie.

    This is not to say that the critics were wrong. Or that folks who DONT like the movie are wrong. Or that TFW2005 supports ROTF as Gone With the Wind level cinema worthy of a sweep at the Oscars.

    The folks that do agree with the critics, and don't like the movie, there are other threads on this forum that you can respond to, and are free to do so. That's just not the point of this particular thread.

    During the early part of opening week, I felt there was an stronger than normal negativity floating around the movie by PROFESSIONALS, and wanted us, the fans, to respond. In a constructive, FUN manner.

    So, I will give this one more shot. Ive deleted several hundred posts from this thread, leaving less than 25. Let's try to stay on target.

    New Rules

    You must quote a professional critic's original story.

    You must reference 2 points in their story and explain why you feel they are wrong.

    You may not comment on anyone's posts from this thread or forum inside this thread.

    You may not respond to anyone who posts a review here. This thread is not for back and forth fan commentary on the movie or movie industry. It is meant to speak about particular critics and why you think they are wrong.

    If you think they are right, stay out of this thread.

    You may not call anyone anywhere a name.

    It must be more than 3 sentences.



    I apologize to everyone for not staying up on the management of this thread, I've been busy and didn't think a festering swamp of puss was brewing in here like it was.
     
  2. dyingwill3rd

    dyingwill3rd Life is a fabled mystery

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    2,049
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    First off, they think the movie is too inappropriate for kids. BS! This movie clearly has a rating of PG-13, and it's purpose is to bring back adults and teenagers who were former fans to be fans of the franchise again. Second, they see my two favorite new additions Skids and Mudflap, as racist stereotypes. again, i say, BS! They are there as comic relief and to be the younger autobots who Bumblebee has to take care of. They help to bring comedy to the movie, to help balance the scifi, romance, action and adventure. In comparison with their bumpersticker, the critics can "suck my popsicle"

    If I see those critics:

    Them: "Ow that hurt!

    Me: "Of course, it's an ass kicking!"


    And here's my video of how I think those ROTF hating SOB's are wrong, by saying how awesome the movie wasYouTube - Skids, Mudflap and Bumblebee review ROTF

    LONG LIVE ROTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay 
    :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay 
    :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay :bay 
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2009
  3. MonkeyBusiness

    MonkeyBusiness Autobot Engineer

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I'd like to say that I don't understand where the critics are coming from, but to a certain extent I do. Revenge of the Fallen is a movie that basically said "This movie is about giant alien robots that can change into cars/trucks/etc. beating the hell out of eachother, and damn all the rest." It flies in the face of traditional Hollywood movie making. It's standing up and saying "We're going to have the biggest robots, the biggest battles, the biggest explosions, and nothing else matters.". It is, truly, a two hour and thirty some odd minute toy commercial. For us hardcore fans, it's fantastic. It's the characters we loved growing up, brought to miraculous life on the big screen. It is as faithful an adaptation of the original cartoon series (something never renowned for it's depth) as any of us are likely to see. At some point, you just kind of throw your hands up and go, "Okay, I give up. I'm just going to start betting on what blows up next.". Is it a perfect movie? No. But is it perfect in what it wants to do? Absolutely. Revenge of the Fallen grabs the viewer by the face and says "You WILL watch this." It is such a spectacle that even if the plot is virtually nonexistent, it already has a home in the DVD and Blu-Ray collection of every person that wants to show what their home theater can do. It is the ultimate expression of escapism, a movie that not only has plot holes, but seems to revel in them. It is the end result of an era where the world is just to depressing, where people no longer go to the movies to be mentally challenged, but rather to be entertained and to spend two hours plus not worrying about making rent, finding a job, or any of the other things people have to worry about.

    In short, Revenge of the Fallen is an affront to the very notion that a movie has to have a serious and comprehensible plot to be entertaining. It is the anti-The Dark Knight, an action movie where action occurs not because the plot and storyline demand it, but rather just because it can, plot and storyline be damned.
     
  4. Optimus Prime

    Optimus Prime Roll out! TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Posts:
    5,308
    News Credits:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    221
    Likes:
    +25
    Optimus747 vs. Ebert

    As the one-time movie reviewer for Hoosac Valley High School's "The Eye of the Hurricane", I felt that I had at least some iota of experience in the world of film critique. As such, I decided to compare my views with those of the esteemed Roger Ebert, known to some as "God" due to the unbelievable truths he divulges in his movie reviews.
    Though I'm just a casual moviegoer, a peon compared to the glorious likes of the professional reviewers, I have done my best to attempt to bring myself to the level of Mr. Ebert.
    And here's what we had to say regarding "Revenge of the Fallen":

    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews

    (I put Mr. Ebert's quotes in bold, because his words carry so much power)
    "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.


    I can't believe you enjoyed that scene with Wheelie OH wait, I see what you did there, that's sarcasm! Good Lord, only a few sentences into the review and it's already funnier than the actual movie! Well played!

    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.

    Oh, you're killing me, Mr. Ebert! A veritable barrage of side-splitters with your stinging metaphors! Good show!

    The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots®, Decepticons® 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.

    The plot is most certainly uncomprehensible for people of our intelligence. It would take a first-grader to understand that the Decepticons are seeking the Allspark fragment in order to revive Megatron, who in turn wants to assist the Fallen in activating the sun harvester in order to produce Energon as a means of sustaining their race!
    And the Transformers themselves, with their accents! Whatever happened to the good old days when average West-coast Americans voiced alien robots?! And I'm glad that you agree with me that they look like garbage, I mean, I can never tell when I'm looking at Optimus Prime's head or his legs! No distinguishable features whatsoever!
    And of course they're dumb, they're aliens! Nobody's smarter than Americans, who know how to take on any problem without help from useless advanced civilizations! The human characters are definitely more interesting to watch; I'd rather see a movie all about Galloway or Leo than these useless robots.

    The movie has been signed by Michael Bay. This is the same man who directed "The Rock" in 1996. Now he has made "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." Faust made a better deal.

    Ooh, classy, a jab at another Bay disaster and a reference to classical literature that shows your intelligence!

    This isn't a film so much as a toy tie-in. Children holding a Transformer toy in their hand can invest it with wonder and magic, imagining it doing brave deeds and remaining always their friend. I knew a little boy once who lost his blue toy truck at the movies, and cried as if his heart would break. Such a child might regard "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" with fear and dismay.

    I know, what kind of good movie has toys that go with it?
    (Star Wars, Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, etc., don't count).



    The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions, although--hello!--you can't outrun an explosion.

    Yeah, what kind of respectable action movie has people running away from an explosion?! The nerve of that Michael Bay...the nerve.

    They also make speeches like this one by John Turturro: "Oh, no! The machine is buried in the pyramid! If they turn it on, it will destroy the sun! Not on my watch!"

    Yes, I did notice that all of the dialogue was actually monologues meant to take themselves too seriously for the sake of humor. What's the point?

    The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire.

    Nope, can't think of any aliens that have gotten shot befo...

    There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines.

    Testify, Mr. Ebert! Fox and Lucas are trashy and hideous compared to the elegant women of the nursing home you're from. For shame that our youth are taught to think such bimbos are "real women"!

    The two most inexplicable characters are Ron and Judy Witwicky (Kevin Dunn and Julie White), who are the parents of Shia LaBeouf, who Mephistopheles threw in to sweeten the deal. They take their son away to Princeton, apparently a party school, where Judy eats some pot and goes berserk. Later they swoop down out of the sky on Egypt, for reasons the movie doesn't make crystal clear, so they also can run in slo-mo from explosions

    Exactly, what type of kid going to college needs to have his parents involved? The additional human element, as well as the humor they provide, is absurdly out of place in such a film!
    And though Starscream tells the Decepticon bulldozer, Rampage, to release the Witwickys as bait for Sam, that's really the code for "Let them run from explosions!"; only a man of your cunning could have seen through that deception, Mr. Ebert!

    The battle scenes are bewildering. A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion. I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples. They have tiny little heads, although Jetfire® must be made of older models, since he has an aluminum beard.

    Yeah, they never used their guns or swords or whips or missiles at all! What was with that? It was as bad as the fight scenes in G1!
    As for the tiny heads, quite frankly I don't have any witty sarcastic remark regarding that comment. All I can say is that someone is trying to feel better about himself.

    Aware that this movie opened in England seven hours before Chicago time and the morning papers would be on the streets, after writing the above I looked up the first reviews as a reality check. I was reassured: "Like watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan!" (Bradshaw, Guardian); "Sums up everything that is most tedious, crass and despicable about modern Hollywood!" (Tookey, Daily Mail); "A giant, lumbering idiot of a movie!" (Edwards, Daily Mirror). The first American review, Todd Gilchrist of Cinematical, reported that Bay's "ambition runs a mile long and an inch deep," but, in a spirited defense, says "this must be the most movie I have ever experienced." He is bullish on the box office: it "feels destined to be the biggest movie of all time." It’s certainly the biggest something of all time.

    Very good, referencing such well-known reviewers and newspapers to drive home your point that everyone absolutely hates this movie! To the abyss with casual moviegoers, they don't know what they're talking about because they aren't refined and educated enough to know what's enjoyable and what isn't!
    And the box office...oh don't get me started! Money never won anyone an Oscar...am I right?!
    And yes, Revenge of the Fallen is most definitely the biggest "something" of all time: It's the biggest summer blockbuster action-packed entertaining "popcorn movie" of all time.
    Email me if you want a list of the biggest "somethings" that you yourself are, Mr. Ebert.
    Thank you for your uplifting and enlightening review; I did enjoy it so, and await your undoubtedly unbiased reviews of Harry Potter and upcoming Disney movies, which I'm sure you will agree with me are 10000000000000 times more worthwhile to see than this garbage called "Transformers".
    Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  5. Optimus Clyde

    Optimus Clyde Space Trucker

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Posts:
    765
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Location:
    Plano, TX
    Likes:
    +7
    Ebert and Knowles may have a few points (and no, I don't think their assertion that Skids and Mudflap are racist caricatures is one of them), but they apparently believe every movie has to be some kind of cinematic work of Oscar-worthy art. They sound like the guy at work who, when TF1 came out, tried to argue with me about how certain parts of the movie were unrealistic. Really?! No shit!!! Parts of a movie about giant fucking robots from outer space are unrealistic? Alert the media!

    I, on the other hand, had no such delusions. My girl and I walked in, sat down, and got exactly what we wanted out of Revenge of the Fallen...a kick-ass Transformers movie that was even better than the first one!!! And last I looked, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

    So...
    EBERT AND KNOWLES CAN KISS MY SHINY CHROME SKIDPLATE!!!
     
  6. DrawerDemon

    DrawerDemon DOOOOOM!!

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Posts:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    Erm, I kind of agreed with most of the critics. Some parts worked perfectly, and lots of parts failed perfectly. Plot and continuity shouldn't be disposable, and characters should drive the story, not the other way round.

    I think Ebert was pretty mean, but I don't think that makes him automatically wrong.

    Now, if we're just looking to call the man certifiably insane, I'm all for it. Didn't he LOVE the hell out of Waterworld, or Postman, or something?
     
  7. JinSaotome

    JinSaotome Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Posts:
    828
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    Ebay:
    The days of action and adventure are upon us once again and the time is now, our time, our genre of movies. I speak of the superhero, cartoon, and video game based movies that are becoming the blockbusters of the new era. Movies like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen are reaching a whole new generation of viewers. Not only do these movies capture the attention of the wide-eyed child but of the adult who grew up on the origins of such comic or cartoon themes. They are the ones who gasp in awe at their childhood brought to life on the big screen and who are now sharing the very characters they loved with their own children.

    Unfortunately this is where worlds collide and the bell is beginning to toll. Not for the viewers of today, but of the movie critics of yesterday. Critics like Ebert Roper of the Chicago Sun Times, David Edwards of Mirror.co.uk, Peter Bradshaw of Guardian, and Robert Dougherty of Associated Content. They were once heralds of the arts, grading movies with verbose reviews and strong opinions that captured the attention of their readers. But now they squabble and complain at the offerings of Hollywood like bickering old men. And that doesn’t mean they have to be aged into their fifties, but rather the mentality of their craft has transformed them and placed them outside the usefulness of today’s moviegoing class. They have shown us they are relics of the past by comparing our new generation of action films to their beloved classics.

    With each thumbs down and one-star rating they vengefully toss forth, these popular movie critcs threaten the market and future of the genre we know and love. They have no business reviewing movies they do not understand and lack the intelligence and open mindedness to accept such films into the fray. This frame of mind is dangerous and impedes any sort of progress for the future of such films. True enough the critics of yesterday live to enjoy the classics, movies they claim have beautiful insight in to humanity and where a Patsy Cline score can be heard playing in the background. And that’s all well and good for that is their schoolyard playground where they can rule as king of the sandbox. But they fail terribly when they try to grasp the spectacular, or try and understand the love someone holds in their heart just to see their favorite giant robots walk across the screen for the first time. The movie critics will scream and yell, casting down upon the directors and producers of this abomination to Hollywood’s credit.

    Yet the very movie they sneer at breaks records and outsells their ‘Casablanca classics’ drawing in millions upon millions of fans. This only serves to enrage the critic and fuel their hateful approach to the review, in many cases going so far as to mock the fans of such a genre. Well enough is enough. Movies like Transformers and Superhero types MUST succeed if they are ever to reach the levels of directing and plot brilliance these critics hold in such high regard. We have only begun to tinker with the tools that allow us to reshape a Camaro into a bipedal humanoid in a split second of screentime. But the movie critics of yesterday do not care about that, they do not care about new genres of movies and the child and his father that so desperately want to see their favorite robots battle it out regardless of how well the lighting was chosen.

    The bell has tolled. New blood is needed and a new generation of movie critic must take the place of the aging, bitter ones that cling so desperately to their past films. And if these movie critics of yesterday cannot accept that, they must be replaced by ones who can. You cannot compare movies like Transformers to anything else for they are a new generation of films where the amazing action and intricate plots do not necessarily need to take place on the big screen….they take place in the heart of the fans who enjoy them.
     
  8. tobuttica

    tobuttica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +0
    I for one, as a real person, and a Transfan, thought the movie was phenominal, gripes included. Racial Sterotypes? So what. I bet nobody noticed the racial stereotypes in "Cars" because it's an effing Disney movie. The lowrider has a latino accent. Flo, who was voiced by an african american woman, had a large trunk, Fillmore was a stoner VW van, Mater was a hillbilly truck with buck teeth. All racial stereotypes. I say BLASPHEMY to those douche baggy movie reviewers that don't know what a real movie is. Benjamin Button, please. Milk, eff that! Bring on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for the People's Choice Awards! For the movies that people actually watch and love, by the people that actually love "good" movies.
     
  9. Grimwing

    Grimwing Scientist Supreme

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Posts:
    4,962
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Likes:
    +3
    I won't say revenge of the fallen is perfect. But your reviews are being harsh. Its a long ride but It has some of the greatest robot battles ever put to film.

    I understand why the lowbrow humor is here. In passing though that stuff is just white noise. And a Childish RIOT if your theater is packed with Yahoos. Its simply cute jokes and I honestly wouldn't be annoyed as much by these bits in private (on DVD/Blueray) Where a laugh track does not accompany it.

    I think this movie is going to do well because it resonates with a grand amount of people. Some people are board by constant action+ narrative. They need simple and crude jokes between the rush. And others Just are here for insanity a popcorn action movie can buy. It was a much better translation of the original transformers show+ comics 25 years later and the homages were gigantic nods the original Transformers Series with the Matrix, The Solar Needle, and Jetfire changeing Factions.

    And honestly I came out of the theater traceing my mind through the two and a half hour journey. Immediatly Recalling the action I came for. Traceing the story together keneticly.They gave you a solid 15 minutes of filler to chew on and make fun of it but its a big movie and there is room for everyone. Not just you film Snobs. And specificly Roger Ebert your review particularly was so contradictory I trust you were watching the wall instead of the screen. Everything is explained. Everything functions like the toy line allows it to. The designs are what Transformers Look like and Frankly I think its as Solid as a Artillery Rail Cannon.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  10. SAF7

    SAF7 LOVE this game!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    5,139
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +16
    Ebay:
    Honestly, what more could critics expect from this film? It is a summer action film, not something that is supposed to be complicated or to make you think. Most people go to summer action films to see fights and explosions and to generally be entertained. While it is true that a great story and plenty of action can take place in the same movie, if a summer action flick keeps people in the seats and has most people leaving and saying "Man, wasn't it cool when...", then the movie has done its job. From what I've heard critics saying (I don't usually read reviews), they do make many valid points. However, it ultimately boils down to the critics thinking "Fire Emblem", when the game being played is "Street Fighter" (just the first analogy that sprung to mind).
     
  11. Magnus1701

    Magnus1701 Dih Hayud 1st

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Posts:
    519
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Likes:
    +1
    Ebay:
    Character-driven... thought-provoking... great story-telling... These terms and more are used by critics to promote what they would call good movies. These aspects are all well and good, don't get me wrong, but not everyone can sit and watch films like "Slumdog Millionaire" or "The Wrestler" and enjoy them like our good friends on Reelz Channel and Entertainment Tonight. Transformers doesn't really fit in with the above films. It's more of a popcorn movie than anything.

    I personally LOVE movies. I have taken the opportunity over the years to broaden the genres of the films I watch, just so I can appreciate (and at times learn to appreciate) stories of all times and eras. However I see a growing pattern -and what seems fascination- with the bashing of movies simply for the sake of, well, bitching. Action, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Comedies, and Toy-Based films are all victims of such criticism.

    Mr Ebert, I respect you as a professional. You know your craft, and you've been in the business for a long time. But guess what: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. Michael Bay knows how to bring the crowds in. His films are exciting, top-notch, well-shot, and you are always guaranteed to see sequences that you have never seen before.

    In regards to you article: You said that the plot was incomprehensible. Weren't you listening? Everything was straight-forward from where I was sitting. The accents of the Autobots: they learned Earth's languages and accents when they arrived on Earth in the first one (or weren't you listening then either?). The "junk-yard throw-up": they're ALIEN robots. Of course it's not going to look like anything WE would know. How would you design them, hmm? A door on each arm? The hood on the chest? Wheels on the shoulders? Guess what: been there, done that. "Toy tie-in"? The toys were based on the movie itself. And besides, the movie IS based on a children's toyline, so why wouldn't there be toys? The "fighting with fists"? You've seen your fair share of movies; not everyone who goes into battle fights with long-range weaponry Or hand weapons. What are the guys supposed to use? Harsh language? Puh-lease.

    Regardless of your like or dislike of the films, this has been coming for a long time. Fans of the show have long-awaited a film interpretation of their childhood heroes. Didn't you ever dream of being the heroic cowboy, or the dashing man-of-mystery, or the quick-and-witty detective (or any other iconic characters)? Of course you did. Every child has. Well this was ours, Sir. Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide... these and many more characters touched our lives at a young age (and even into adulthood) in much the same way that John Wayne or the Lone Ranger (or who ever) would have you in your youth.

    Just because something isn't your cup of tea doesn't make it a bad movie. Yeah some of the jokes were a bit over the top. Sure some innuendoes could have been left out. But you know what, Mr Ebert: I laughed. My friends laughed. My parents laughed. The kids laughed. You can't sit there in your nice office in your suit-and-tie and tell me that you never laughed at the occasional toilet humor. None of the critics can. Well, they could say it but we all know they'd be lying.

    Whether you and the other critics like it or not, Transformers is a part of this world's pop culture. Not the US. Not Japan. Not the UK. THE WORLD. And people are going to keep watching it whether you gripe about it or not.

    It sounds to me that someone needs to open their eyes and realize that just because a thought enters their mind or words leave their mouth does not mean that they are right. You see a lame movie. I see a fan's dream come to big screen life. Fine. Opinions are like assholes, as my Dad says. Everyone's got one. Just don't blow all your hot air at us because it's not "old-school" film. Times are changing. This is part of what's popular. We've got to deal with it, just like you. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Just spare us the thesaurus-driven tirade about how terrible you think it is.

    Oh and one more thing: :bay 

    Booyah.


    Magnus1701... Out.
     
  12. Repainted

    Repainted Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Posts:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Likes:
    +0
    The movie was incredible and amended all the called out shortcomings of the first film. I love the first film but am well aware that neither it, it's next incartion and even a 3rd will never ever be perfect. We wanted more bots and got them. We wanted more Decepticon characterization and got it. We wanted more TF mythos brought to the table and got them. We wanted less human screen time and they did matter less ultimately. I think the critics were bound to hate it because what makes comics and sci-fi type stuff the greatest thing to us will make them think they're wasting their time which seems to be true over 90% of the time if you ask me. I think they do purposely approach these films negatively and no matter what's on the screen and comes out the speakers, nothing can amend their preconceived notions. I think if those TF fans who hated this and the previous film want to, go ahead, but don't involve yourselves with a 3rd live action film, because there's no doubt about the outcome. As to the critics, I don't expect heaps of praise from them on Transformers unless it completely sells out ticking off the fanbase beyond belief to please non-fans who can't invest in TFs over the long haul. To hell with the critics, if you love it, don't be afraid to say so.
     
  13. VaderPrime1

    VaderPrime1 Prepare for termination!

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Posts:
    5,194
    News Credits:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Likes:
    +20
    Instagram:
    Flickr:
    YouTube:
    I think critics are "bloodsucking know-it-alls" that think they have the right and only opinion when it come to movies because they are paid for it. Another thing I've noticed is that when fanboys like us get a movie that we want they try to bash it just to try and fit in with the non-fans. I think they're old hags that aren't young enough for all this action from the new millenium. Yes, they gave o.k. reviews back in the 20th century, but we need a new generation of critics that can appreciate the new-fangled stuff. I feel that there aren't any good critics left in my opinion. Also, I think critics are overrated and I think it's sad that people who are famous get paid for their opinion when I can come up with my own, for free. I have never taken movie critics serious because all of the movies that I end up enjoying have been bashed by them. :2c: 

    I loved the movie and no high-and-mighty critic is going to stop me from seeing the movies I enjoy.
     
  14. laughograms

    laughograms Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Posts:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Likes:
    +0
    This is what I posted on Ebert's Journal webpage.
    By Michael on June 25, 2009 3:10 PM

    Roger, I love you, and love your writing. Truly. You opened my eyes as a very young man to a world of cinema; you continue to do so, and I owe you for that. These days I am often perplexed by your choices (three stars for The Proposal? Really?) but never in doubt about your sincerity. (Though you often seem to measure a film based on how well it achieves what it's setting out to do, and by my yardstick, that makes TF:ROTF score well more than one star, but it's not my yardstick that's published the world 'round, of course).

    And I can't defend Transformers: ROTF. It doesn't need my defense, as the extremely happy hundreds of people leaving my local cinema after 5 midnight screenings can attest. I made a point of sticking around to watch people's reactions and this was one cheerful group. Nor is there a defense for it: it's not by any stretch something I would define as a "good film."

    However: I LOVE IT. There are lots of things I dislike about it, but far more that I enjoy. I am not some angry fanboy who is going to diss you for your opinion, nor am I going to pick apart some of the inaccuracies of what you've said about it, although I could do without the ad hominem attacks in the comments on people who do enjoy it. People who have fun watching this movie are not "morons" or bad people. Or teenagers. I'm 45, work in the film and TV business, and I am well outside the demographic for this movie. But I loved it all the same. Anyone looking around the theatre wondering why the majority of fellow patrons seem to be enjoying what they feel is some kind of crime against the senses of vision and hearing, do yourself a big favor: get up and walk out. Right away. I won't blame you.

    I don't know if it's possible to understand the dialectic, but in the past week I saw two movies that I really enjoyed. One was TF:ROTF. The other was "Tetro." Lest you think no lover of cinema could take pleasure from both, let me assure you I enjoyed each on their merits. One was a piece of cinema by an acknowledged master of the craft. One was a jarring, loud thrill ride.

    I realize you think TF:ROTF is unencumbered by merit, and I respect your opinion: hell, I understand it perfectly! Just like I understand that a bucket of KFC is going to be really, really bad for me. Would I love to see a movie about giant robots that had a plot and real characterization? Sure -- and I've seen one, The Iron Giant. Most of the time, I demand a lot from the films I see. But every once in a while -- a long while -- a movie comes along for which I have few such demands. In this case, my demand was: show me cool fighting robots! Absolutely anything else is a bonus. I have never seen another Michael Bay flick I could stomach, except for these two. They are big, loud b-movies, hell, C-MOVIES, unapologetically so. Seriously, if the robot stuff was cool, I don't care a go for the rest of it. This makes me neither a moron nor a morally unsound person. I just like some candy once in a while.

    All this earnest hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing about how summer movies are just big and stupid now I find exceedingly silly. "Since when did it become OK for popcorn movies to not have good acting and stories etc. etc.?" Since FOREVER. Perhaps people's memories of, I don't know, "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" or, hell, name your William Castle picture -- or serial adventure of bygone days -- have been burnished with the passage of time, but those were the critic-proof, stupid popcorn entertainments of their time. I find the TF's no stupider and a good deal more eye-popping and generally well-made.

    I too wish there were more summer movies of the calibre of Raiders, or Empire and so on -- wish that dearly -- but let's recall just what those filmmakers expressly set out to recreate -- pretty badly done, poorly written, money-generating, fannies-in-the-seat popular entertainments. (Or are people's memories of "Flash Gordon" serials similarly burnished?)

    Is it possible to make something that works as a popular entertainment that's also a good film? Damn right it is -- just ask John Ford. But there aren't a lot of John Fords in the world -- never were, truth be told -- and much as I rue that along with all the people ragging on TF in this thread, I don't mind the occasional piece of cinematic junk food. I treasure it, to be honest, because for me it's a rare treat.

    If I may address three specifics:

    The supposedly incomprehensible plot: I am really stymied at the number of people making this complaint. I can only conclude that the overwhelming nature of the flick in general is what's confusing people -- like they're switching off. The plot is very very simple and clear, as already elucidated earlier in this thread. I really find it hard to believe so many people can't seem to understand it.

    The Twins: a little tiresome, I'll confess, but the racism thing didn't even occur to me until I read people talking about it online. One of the few things that I found amusing about them was that I was taking both of them to be teenagers, the dumbass youngsters of the crew, one of them to be more of a hick and one of them to be more like one of those poser suburban kids from a rich household who slouches around the mall with his $90 jeans down around his ass, t-shirt down to his knees, $40 baseball cap perched at an absurd angle on his head, talking all "street" with a lot of "yo's" a "dawgs" with his Eminem cranking out of his $200 iPhone. I thought these characters were taking the piss out of that sort of kid, and actually, I still think so, and I am as earnest a white liberal as the next person.

    Gender: my wife, a late-30s professional, loved the first one (in spite of herself, much as I did). I am inclined to believe she will also love this one. She will also dislike a lot of it, as I did. But it will be a fun ride.

    I'll not change anyone's mid with these comments, not do I wish to, but I do want it said that some people take pleasure in the occasional entertainment of this sort. Just because I like to go on a roller coaster once in a while doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to live in one -- or that I don't appreciate a ride in a Jaguar.
     
  15. Cyberwolf1980

    Cyberwolf1980 Deceptus Templar C-Dub TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Posts:
    982
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Likes:
    +2
    I'll start by saying that while I had my issues with Revenge of the Fallen, in no way did it hamper my overall enjoyment of the flick and that all haters; critics and fans alike, need to lighten up on the slamming. The plot, while not perfect, was a definite improvement over the first and the some of the bots had received more characterization and personality than all the characters, human and bot, combined in the first. To reviewers like Roger Ebert, make sure you have all your facts straight before you even bother to review anything. Mixing up characters like Starscream and Jetfire just doesn't fly and there is no logistical reason for it. Especially if you claimed to enjoy the first movie. Jetfire was a completely new character while Starscream was a returning character whom bears no resemblance to the former other than chicken legs. Such errors negate any and all criticisms you might make. If you can't keep track of returning or new characters, you're either not paying attention or entered the movie believing in your own mind that it would be awful, ruining any enjoyment you might have received.

    To the other critics, especially those that can't even remotely enjoy a sci-fi flick, don't review it. From the get go it would not be for you. Everyone has a favorite genre, and if you must review stick to that which you'd prefer. I'm a firm believer that the only reason critics exist and are so harsh and biased against everything, is because they, themselves, lack the creativity to put together a paper airplane, let alone an entire movie. if RotFs plot was too confusing, dumb, and/or illogical, at least look at it this way. Giant f*ucking robots! Explosions! Just feed into the ADD in all of us and you can't go wrong. And if you don't agree with me yet, look at it this way. Opinions are like assholes, we all got one, but it doesn't mean I want you waiving yours in my face.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  16. VokVisitor

    VokVisitor Artist

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Posts:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Likes:
    +0
    All in all, I've had a very complicated reaction to Revenge of the Fallen.

    When I saw it, I was like "Yeah! Giant f***ing robots! Awesome! Starscream has lines! Wicked! Holy Crap! Did ravage just spew out some nanites that just combined into a death machine? Yeah, he did! Freakin' awesome! Wow! the fallen and jetfire and devastator and all that stuff! W00t!"

    A close friend of mine said: "My thoughts on Transformers was, 'As long as there's big things breaking other big things, I'll be happy...' So it exceeded my expectations."

    And that's how it was for almost three hours.

    Then, all of a sudden the movie was over.
    Then I left the theater, Smiling and thinking "oh man that was so cool,"
    and then I realized, "Wait, What was that about? nothing in that film made any sense! there was no real ending, the plot was not character-driven. Many of the characters we expected to see were just glorified special effects! Michael Bay's directing style is crude and "ham-fisted" when it comes to handling a mythic story. All-in-all, it was really one big car commercial/military recruitment ad with some robots in it..."

    And I then realized how much of a critical failure the movie actually was. A viewer can not walk away from this film with very much. It was like a one-night-stand of a movie. And I figure that's a bad thing.

    BUT I STILL LOVED IT.

    and, as one might expect, that created inner conflict.

    But now... It's all eventually boiled down to:

    "Yeah, I'll talk about how much I enjoyed that movie, as long as we both know that it wasn't any good."

    So, I would liken Revenge of the Fallen to a huge fast food meal that we know is not good for us at all, but we absolutely freakin' enjoyed nonetheless. It's like a guilty pleasure, a self-indulgence, a big piece of candy... or a porno.

    And if you go into the theaters expecting that kind of thing in advance, then you'll be saved any awkward embarrassment or regret at the end. That way, you'll enjoy it more, knowing that it is okay to laugh at the bad jokes and to not want any closure afterward.

    So really, I support people giving negative reviews of Revenge of The Fallen... And at the same time I also support everyone seeing Revenge of the Fallen as many times as they want.

    Because it's a weak movie but a wonderful experience.

    And freedom is the right of all sentient beings :lol 
     
  17. Cth

    Cth Cthulhu

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Posts:
    605
    News Credits:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +8
    In the end, it all boils down to one thing.. escapism.

    On another forum, I was in a discussion with someone who had difficulty understanding why so many people were enjoying the film. He was particularly confused by how audiences were embracing Tranformers ROTF as opposed to Terminator Salvation.

    I attempted to explain that the main difference between the two films was the use of humor (which is a subjective thing and clearly people disagree about whether it worked or not -- much like any comedian really) The world of TS was a depressive almost nihilistic environment I pointed out which audiences might have felt overwhelmed by.

    The point is, for many people, the summer film is purely about escapism. Of course, that's a subjective term and no two people will agree 100% on what it means. For many, there's a fine line between escapism and pure fantasy. In other words, there has to be a common human trait that people can identify with in order for audiences to resonate with a film.

    For the original TF film, it was the experience of owning your first car and experiencing a crush on someone. For the second one, it's growing up, accepting responsibility and trying to push on despite life's turmoils.

    It's been said that TF:ROTF is the quintessential summer movie, and I'd agree with that assessment. Bay's goal is to provide entertainment, not pursuing an Oscar.

    To Ebert and the other critics, I would respectfully agree and disagree with their assessments. By the criteria they judged the film against, I can see where it doesn't meet their expectations.

    Or to put it another way, if I'm expecting a home cooked hamburger, I know I'm not going to get it from McDonalds. That having been said, sometimes you're just hungry and a greasy fast food burger hits the spot. It's frustrating for those who hate fast food to see billions served, but the fact is, that's what the target audience craves. The same things applies with regards to TF:ROTF.

    It's ok to not like the film. Just as it's ok for others to enjoy it. You may want to save the world from greasy hamburgers being the only option to eat, but realistically, non-fast food options will never go away.
     
  18. Sage o' G-fruit

    Sage o' G-fruit Critics gonna critique

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Posts:
    7,108
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +11
    (This is an article I wrote for my paper about ROTF. Figured it was just as applicable here.)

    Ahh, the summer movie season. Blockbusters as far as the eye can see. This year, the summer movie season officially began with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. However, it did not open to positive reviews.

    Roger Ebert was one of the examples, saying “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.

    ……

    That’s pretty bad.

    Ebert goes on to say: “The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap. The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions, although--hello!--you can't outrun an explosion. The battle scenes are bewildering.

    Allow me to ask the question that makes the entire review redundant.

    Do you think that this movie was directed at you?

    Ebert is a 67 year old man.

    Does anyone honestly think that Michael Bay, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Ehren Kruger all brainstormed about how the 67 year old man demographic would react to this movie? No, they know who will be the main demographic, and, thus, they wrote with them in mind.

    Another thing about Ebert’s review is he complains about the explosions and battle scenes. Yeah, because if you don’t count the amazing CGI effects, the battle scenes are awful. Plus, if you’re colorblind, and have zero eye coordination, it’s moderately hard to tell the black catlike robot between either the bright yellow robot or the blue and red robot with the bright red flames on his body. Another thing critics have been complaining about was the sexuality, but there’s a few non-human sex jokes, easily forgettable, and taking up a mere 25 seconds of time. If anything, the sexuality is equal to the first movie, except this one has more explosions. What about the emotional depth between Sam and his parents during the Egypt scenes? That’s easily forgettable, because the critics are only looking for the BAD in the movie.

    I admit, the movie seems a bit too long at times, but that’s because in the time allotted, there’s not enough time to explain away the plotholes. If the forest battle was really the climax, as so many have claimed would be better, everyone would be complaining about the fact that the movie was too short. And be honest, this movie exists for one reason. To sell toys. Unfortunately, by the time the forest battle comes up, Bay’s only sold about 10-13 new toys, yet there’s a $100 big toy to sell to the kids, so it looks like it’s time to add some screen time onto the movie to sell MORE toys. And it does its job. By the end of the movie, kids will be lining up to buy a $45 Optimus Prime toy. Face it Ebert, the point of this movie is to move some plastic. And if there’s a story in there, so be it.

    My main point is this: You can’t please everyone, so just add some explosions and then make $16 million on your opening day, breaking box office Wednesday records. Who cares about the critics when this movie is destined to be one of the biggest summer movies ever?
     
  19. TheBigBad

    TheBigBad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Posts:
    490
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Likes:
    +5
    Revenge of the Fallen

    This movie only has one purpose in life, maybe two. Its primary purpose will be to sell home theater systems when it comes out on DVD. Every specialty electronics retailer will using it to demo their wares. Its secondary purpose is to pad the demo reels for everyone who worked on it at ILM. They have accomplished quite a technical feat, and were it not for those people, this film would be completely unwatchable. The film does a complete disservice to the franchise. If any good is to come out of this movie, it is my hopes that they will move on without Michael Bay, and find someone who will give the source material the proper respect.

    I remember when I heard they were making the first one, and it was going to be live action no less! I thought “This is going to be the new Star Wars for a whole generation and beyond…” The depth and wealth of material is immense, and could have delivered one of the most incredible film going experiences in decades, but instead we got a hollow empty story with less than satisfying results. There were parts we all liked, and were happy to see the franchise getting attention. But ultimately I don’t think the first film was the Transformers film anyone really had hoped for or had imagined all these years.

    Now we come to the second film, a chance to atone for everything that wasn’t quite right about the first, a chance to exceed expectations and deliver something truly spectacular, epic, something like The Empire Strikes Back. While the battle scenes do deliver on some levels, the whole narrative is a complete joke, and an insult to anyone who knows what a story is supposed to accomplish. Instead of taking a turn for the better, being more attentive to fandom, and making sure the absolute best product is delivered to us, we get the lowest common denominator of dialogue and plot ever produced in a film.

    It’s literally like someone found all these effects reels and said “Hey! Let’s string all these different CGI elements together and see if we can make some sort of story!” Kind of like what was done with Robotech back in the day, except this is strung together with fart jokes, cussing robots, bare assess, and giant metal balls, instead of an epic back story, or any kind of story at all for that matter. I think the critics are pretty much right on the money on this one. They’re not hating, they like us, simply want to see something compelling, something life changing, like Star Wars did generations ago. Perhaps in this franchise, they all saw that potential, and were more than frustrated when all the potential this franchise has, was squandered on this even more hollow, empty, and let’s face it… sad sequel.

    It’s not about who is right, or who is wrong in this exchange, it’s simply about wanting the best, wanting the film we all have always dreamed about, and so far, I don’t think we’ve gotten it yet. Michael Bay is to Tranformers, what Joel Schumacher was to Batman. Schumacher’s only point of reference for his Batman films was the 60’s TV series. He refused to acknowledge any other source material, and we got Batman with plastic nipples as a result. I can only pray that Transformers will find its Chris Nolan, and break out to achieve its true potential.

    Peace.
     
  20. AndrewT

    AndrewT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Posts:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Likes:
    +0
    Response to Ebert

    The problem with Ebert's one-star review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is that it is inconsistent with Ebert's own rules he uses to judge movies.

    Ebert's methodology is what makes him -- usually -- one of my favorite movie critics. He uses a one- to four-star scale, including half stars, with the midpoint being 2 1/2 stars. Getting 2 1/2 stars means that the movie delivers exactly what you expect it to deliver based on the previews; nothing more, nothing less. In other words, 2 1/2 stars is Ebert telling us "if this is the kind of thing you think you'd probably like, you'll probably like this movie." So, for example, "Imagine That" got 2 1/2 stars from Ebert.

    This is why 2- and 3-star reviews are the most common Ebert reviews. From the 2 1/2 star baseline, a 2-star review tells you that even if you typically like this sort of thing, you'll probably be disappointed. On the other hand, a 3-star review tells you that the movie exceeds expectations.

    Thus, I can understand -- and even appreciate! -- that Ebert gave 3 stars to the romantic comedy "The Proposal", even though I would personally rather gouge my eyes out than see a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock. It's okay; Ebert is saying that if you like romantic comedies, "The Proposal" is better than what you'd expect, and if you're neutral about them, it's maybe worth giving a shot. If you hate romantic comedies (as I do), Ebert's 3-stars are telling you that you'll probably still hate "The Proposal."

    For the rare movies where Ebert gives 3 1/2 or 4 stars, he's trying to tell you "hey, see this film no matter what kinds of movies you typically prefer." That's why The Hangover gets 3 1/2 stars and Up gets 4 stars -- Ebert is saying "hey, even if you don't typically like raunchy comedies or Pixar movies, these are some damn good movies. Go see them!"

    On the opposite end of the spectrum, the two-star movie is a signal to you that the movie is likely to fail to meet your expectations, like Terminator: Salvation. He's not saying "don't see this movie," and if you're a die-hard Terminator fan, you're going to go see it even if it gets two stars. Ebert is just trying to warn you in advance that the movie isn't going to deliver on what you think it will deliver.

    A one-star rating, on the other hand, is for movies so bad that Ebert is trying to tell you, "for the love of God, man, this movie is crap! Don't see it! You won't like it! It will so fall below your expectations that you will be angry at having spent 10 bucks and two hours of your time in the theater. No matter how much you like Jack Black, "Year One" is just not funny." You get the idea.

    So, if you've read this whole overly-lengthy post, what's the payoff? The payoff is that Roger Ebert gave the first "Transformers" movie THREE STARS.

    Yes, that's right, Mr. Hater told us in 2007 that the first "Transformers" was probably going to be better than your average action flick; that it would surprise you, and that on balance it was worth seeing if you liked that sort of movie and maybe even if you didn't. On the other hand, if you hate the idea of giant robots beating the hell out of each other, you probably still wouldn't like "Transformers."

    With that as a history, there is simply no way you can go from a 3-starred review of "Transformers" to a 1-starred review of "Transformers 2." It's fundamentally dishonest. Ebert knows that if you liked "Transformers," you're probably going to like "Transformers 2." Heck, on his blog, he even predicts that Transformers 2 will be a blockbuster and spawn additional sequels. By his own criteria, Transformers 2 deserves at least 2 1/2 stars. Ebert's gripes --the movie is too loud, too explodey, too cartoony, too sexy, and so on -- are not 1-star gripes. If you're thinking about seeing Transformers 2, you know it's going to be loud. You know there are going to be massive explosions. You know Megan Fox is going to straddle anything in a horizontal position. You know there are going to be raunchy jokes. You know there are going to be giant CGI robots beating the crap out of each other. You know all of this because you saw Transformers 1, and Ebert gave that three frickin' stars!

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. Subjectively, I think Transformers 2 is a better movie than the first Transformers in a lot of ways. The robot designs are cleaner and easier to follow in TF2; the fight scenes are better choreographed and more interesting; the variety of robot lifeforms are more interesting; the plot had more twists; there were more interesting subplots; the relationship between Megatron and Starscream was spot on (as was Soundwave); the movie did an excellent job turning Jetfire and Wheelie into real characters; and so on.

    And there is room for fair criticism, too; the things I didn't like about TF1 were back in TF2. So you have Bumblebee peeing on Simmons in TF1; in TF2, Simmons stands under Devastator's balls. TF1 makes two unfunny masturbation jokes in 5 minutes; TF2 makes two unfunny dog-humping jokes in 5 minutes. TF1 had Jazz "kickin' it in the crib"; TF2 has the unbelievably annoying Twins. And so on. But (at least in my eyes) you'd be hard pressed to say that TF2 was worse than TF1 in cringe-worthy moments.

    But even if you disagree with the subjective evaluations, what you get out of TF2 is pretty much on the close order of what you'd expect having seen TF1. Not so much better that it deserves four stars, but clearly and beyond a doubt not so much worse that it deserves just one.

    Ebert's broken his own rules to climb on board the "Michael Bay sucks!" bandwagon, and it's a shame.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page