Yup. And it actually defined the entire movie for most of the critics. I think nearly every review I read or heard regarding ROTF could be summed up by the words "leg-humping robot." Actions speak louder than words, dude.
Well then that just proves people let the littlest things ruin an entire movie for them. Same excuse with Devastator's wrecking balls or Dr. Manhattan's exposed privates in Watchmen. People latch on to it and won't let go. Sad. Instead of listening to critics, I watch stuff for myself. I watched RotF and I liked it alot as did my friends. Some didn't. I watched The Last Airbender and thought it was the biggest PoS i've seen in a while. Some thought it was good. I don't let the critics do the thinking for me and most others don't either.
like I said before you want too make a movie that has many little chinks has in it has possible, then you make damn sure you do not have characters like the twins and wheelie, characters define what direction a movie goes because we have too watch these main characters, and when bay is stereo typing african americans then the directors and writting team are going too get battered by the critics, who would want characters that are as annoying has jar jar binks
Critics don't make movies successful. Making movies to please critics is a waste of time and creativity.
Yea I know, but you got too please the fans, many fans will be the critics and you want too make the best movie for the fans has possible, some critics are movie snobs but some are not, the twins and wheelie is not saying to the fans he is going that direction, of making the best movie has possible. Movies like batman and robin, ROTF, star wars EP1, are films that you want too do different. thats why we have great directors like christopher nolan who trys too improve all the time and he never rush's his films, or creates annoying characters
Take what I said in the previous post and replace the word "critics" with "fans." Fans don't know what they want most of the time.
To use Watchmen again, that was a fan's movie. It was an almost 100% adaptation of the graphic novel. Most fans loved it. Guess what? It bombed at the box office. Making a film that completely pleases either critics or fans ONLY is a fail in the making.
It also stifles creativity. We're never going to find new design aesthetics, characters, or other additions to the lore if the franchise stagnates by trying to appease the complainers.
people just cant let the small things go in movies, very annoying. & me too, ill go watch the movie and judge it myself no matter what the critics say, theyre not always right anyway. Wish more people would too. My friends listen to the critics and automatically decided RoTF was terrible, so i went & watched it in imax & i honestly loved RoTF alot. sucks for all you people who hate it & act like it was the worst ever
difference is watchmen was a good film, not one character is annoying in watchmen, it felt long first viewing. I watched the film again loved it but how its presented, the feel its just a great adaption which you can see the direction team put time and effort into the film with some outstanding performers. and the difference is in ROTF too watchmen? watchmen pleased both critics and fans, ROTF was hated by loads of fans and all the critics some fans liked ROTF allot hated it, like I say critics can get it wrong 4 times out of 10, but no critic anyone can argue with got it wrong with ROTF, it was just shocking. ROTF is as bad as batman and robin, and only films like twilight are worser than ROTF, compared to that ROTF is a masterpiece
Watchmen is a bad example, because it was something only fans knew about. Even still it managed to top the box office opening weekend. The mistake they made was spending $150 million making it. Everyone knows about Transformers. It's like Batman or James Bond. Make a mediocre movie, and you make a lot of money. Make a brilliant movie and you make even more. Quality does make a difference. People notice.
Oh, and I hate the constant comparison to Jar Jar Binks, who isn't nearly as terrible as fanboys make him out to be. His purpose and demeanor is no different than that of C-3P0 in the original trilogy, who was basically a stereotype of a primp and proper Brit. The only reason people latch their anger on to these characters is because the presence of something that destroys their super serious preconceptions of what the film should have been provides an easy target.
Ya'll are throwing the idea around that only critics bashed the movie. Not the frickin' case. I swear to you, with my hand on a stack of bibles, that nearly every person I've spoken to regarding ROTF, as in non-critics, complained about how utterly immature the movie was, compared to it's predecessor. The common complaints I here are about the inner-city hatchback twins, the leg-humping RC robot, the mom who gets loaded on pot-brownies, John Turturro's ass, Leo, robot genitalia and farting robots. Granted, many of those reasons are why the critics hated the film, but the general public didn't sit back and say "Well, gosh, this sure is a terrific movie. I wonder why those critics have been so mean?" Regular people hated it to. While I agree that it's a bad idea to listen to a single critic, and take their review as doctrine, I do think it's naive to stare at a compiled list of reviews, where 85% of critics hate a movie, and say "Well, those critics must be wrong."
Nobody is arguing the case that this movie wasn't terrible. We're arguing that these characters aren't as bad as people make them out to be.
Well my experiance was completely the opposite. Every single person I tell about RotF being considered a terrible movie gives me the same "Seriously?" look and says "I liked it alot. It wasn't terrible." If you're getting the message that we believe only critics hated the movie then you should explore this board and afew others more. There are plenty of people who don't like this movie. Hell, there are people who didn't like The Dark Knight out there too. It's called taste. Everyone is different in this perspective. My issue, as always, is the reasons why people don't like it. Most of the time it's nothing valid like it's pacing or frantic storytelling. It's always "WTF LEG-HUMPING?!? METAL BALLS?!? THIS MOVIE SUXS!"Always trivial, second-long scenes that somehow end up destroying your entire experience. It's baffling.
Of course there are genuine reasons to dislike the movie, but it seems as though a majority of people simply dislike it because it didn't live up to the usual preconceptions of what a Transformers adaptation should be.
exactly, the movie was a complete mess, bay to ROTF is captain smith on the titanic it was a disaster, T1 was better but that was too long and slow. Bay is a typical hollywood director who does what they want, make a shit movie too make loads of money that is micheal bay summed up, he is like a kid who has been given keys to a ferrari. It takes a real creative director with his creative team too really pull out all the stops too make a great film from this genre, like transformers, batman, even films like Xmen accept for 3. christopher nolan sums up if PPL get it right with a franchise, you get a real director too grab a franchise by the balls, which has been thrown around like a hot patato by rubbish directors like burton, and breath new life into it you get the dark knight and batman begins. Transformers needs and should have had a new reboot after ROTF, and get new guys too bring a fresh gritty dark approach too the series which it badly needs. 2 micheal bay films is enough a third is taking the piss
Maybe I just have a twisted and juvenile sense of humor, but I didn't mind the "bad" humor in ROTF. The twins were clearly satirical in nature and not to be taken seriously - same with Wheelie's character for that matter. He's a scrap drone that acts like a drooling moronic teenage boy. And Sam's parents make me giggle, because they are the epitome of embarrassing parents. I thought it was funny, and totally fits with Bay's comedic style in nearly all of his movies. As for critics, one of the reasons, besides the aforementioned leg-humping, Roger Ebert hated Wheelie was because of his Brooklyn accent. Right, because every character from henceforth out must have a generic American accent. Gotcha. Diversity be damned. I really had no issues with ROTF's humor. My issues were more with the actual massive plotholes and well, lack of a coherent plot for that matter. Eh. And I don't read critics' reviews. If I did that, the majority of movies I love I would never have seen if I'd gone by what the critics said. *shrugs* As for Wheelie, I'm glad he's back since I really don't have an issue with his character, I just wasn't expecting him to be since his attachment to Megan Fox's character. Though, wonder if he'll act the same around Carly? Haha I can see the fanboy bitching now...
