Y'know, it is a wee bit confusing.

A lot of the reviews for the first one talked about how they wanted more focus on the robots, more screentime for them, that kinda thing, but now they're saying "less is more"? I know they're not the same reviewers (for the most part anyway), but it is a little... confusing. Levelling one major point of criticism and then getting worked up when it's dealt with/fixed just isn't terribly productive.

 

Don't get it twisted. Cameron is a bigger egomaniac then Bay & Steven put together. The only reason he doesn't promote himself because he knows everyone else is going to do it for him. I remember the marketing campaign for Titanic. Everything started with "The director of Terminator & Aliens" blah blah blah. Also, studio's aren't to keen to work with him unless they're ready to shell out a 300+ million budget for his films(The reason why he doesn't make allot of movies). That's what he demands, that's why Titanic had so many problems because he kept eclipsing the production budget, and he threatened to walk many times because they didn't grant the "King of the World" all of his wishes as far as financing. In the end he was right, that's why he's getting another 300+ million to do Avatar. Cameron isn't overrated IMHO. Avatar is the only movie that has me worried as far as dethroning TF's as the king of sci-fi films.

 

I have never tried to show myself as being clever, or refined, or highly intellectual. Rather, I do not want to portray the reviewer as clever, without any effect to my own intellect. There is a difference.

I do not care if you do not believe, and I won't be bothered to convince you either. As far as I'm concerned, bombastic is a very common term used to describe people with a penchant for overly flowerful words. Should you find that word too sophisticated for everyday use, that's your problem.

I'll just pick the most obvious one:
"Next time could we have less balls and more brains?"

There is no need to tell me you're sick of anything, because frankly I do not care how you feel. There is a difference between calling something being bad because its really bad, and calling something bad because it does not fit your preference.

A piece of moldy, stale bread is bad. If one were to criticise it, I have no problems with that. But if you were to taste a bowl of chicken soup, using a different recipe from your favourite that mum used to make, and then criticize it as bad, then I have a problem with that. Because 'bad' in this instance is no longer an objective opinion, rather a subjective one based on preconceptions on what constitutes good and bad.

Should I change my metaphor to Scorcese, or Tarantino then?
At the heart of the matter, is a movie designed to wow, rake in money, sell cars, sell toys and a shitload of t-shirts and stickers. It doesn't seek to be clever, not be highly refined. Most of all, its directed by Michael Bay, whose style is all too well-known by now. Why would anyone expect anything else?

It would be like expecting a cow to fly, and then go cuckoo and be up in arms when said cow fails to deliver.

Why would anyone, or anything seek to change anything, when the current method is already raking in massive profits? Don't fix what isn't broken comes to mind.

But the problem here most of the time is, there is no standard definition of what constitutes a fail. Each time a person labels something a fail, more often than not its based on personal preference.

A food critic doesn't like that bland, characterless dish. But that dish sells 30 portions everyday. Now, in the eyes of the critic its a fail. But in the eyes of 30 customers, its a good meal. In the eyes of the restaurant, its profit.
So is it a failure or not ?

As for the Oscar thing, it was a metaphor. In other words, some people watch a film that's mainly designed for eye candy with a total disregard for almost everything else, and then try to compare it with films that's designed as a fine piece of art.

 

Yes I do understand its their jobs to give an accurate account of what they just saw. My point is, most times, people's opinions are influenced by preconceptions, and thus are no longer objective.

 

 

Opinions aren't subjective.

 

At times they are. Say you like scary horror movies. Thus when you're asked to watch a comedy and give a review of it, most likely it will be negative.

But does that mean that comedy flick sucks? I doubt it.
Because your opinion was based somewhat on personal preference.

 

My apologies. I mistyped. Meant to say that opinions are subjective.

I would think that a reviewer would compare a new movie to something he may have seen before. Or reference the previous work of the people. But an opinion on something like film is a declaration of taste.

An opinion can't be objective, though it can be reasoned out and explained.

 

Ah ok lol. No worries.

Back on topic, I would venture to say that even reviewers are not totally bias-free at times. Their opinion pieces could be shaped by a number of factors such as personal preferences, company obligations, benefits to be gained, the need to portray themselves in a certain way, or the need to conform with the general norms of what makes a good or bad film, etc.

Should a reviewer actually find one of Uwe Boll's film interesting, I'm pretty sure he would try to hide his enthusiasm as much as possible, for fear of being ridiculed, scorned or laughed at by fellow film critics. Thus in his review, he might highlight more on the negative aspects, as to fit in with the industry's general perception of Boll's films.

Not saying that all film critics are like that, but i'm pretty sure some of them are, because its only human nature.

 

But every notion of "bad" (or good) is based on preconceptions.

There is no such thing as an "objective" good or bad. All criteria used to judge "objectively" are based on the assumptions and preconceived notions we have, even if we aren't aware of it.

"Character development" is not an objective criteria to "goodness" - we just believe that's the case because that's what we are used to seeing.

Essentially, one cannot claim to seperate personal taste from objective quality, as the notion of objective quality does not exist.

 

That's the thing though...professional critics are supposed to have biases. They've been appointed to a position where they can say whether a movie is good or bad, and those recommendations would influence people on whether or not to go see the movie. They're not supposed to present an objective view of whether a movie is good or bad.

 

I think it is possible that some of the critics do go in with preconceived notions when it says a Micheal Bay film. But then given the lack of range in his work it would be so easy for critic to start expecting the same things out of Bay if he isn't mixing his directing talents up by doing something other than summer action movies.

I guess if Bay ever really does that small quite character driven film with no explosions he's talked about we can get a better picture of which critics just aren't going to give him a chance and which one's were being totally fair.

 

You chose to take a pop at a reviewer you deemed a "know-it-all-hack" because of the particular use of his vocabulary, in a manner which I thought - ironically - demonstrated exactly the kind of condescending attitude you were bellyaching about. Perhaps I was wrong and if so I apologise. The tone of your posts since hasn't exactly dissuaded me from this opinion though...

Riiiight. So now the phrase "less balls and more brains" is suddenly a demand for 'a work of Shakespearean quality' is it?

I am charmed by your magnanimous nature.

Ignoring the increasingly bizarre food references for a second, I don't think this is in any way true. When critics (professional or otherwise) choose to take elements of Transformers to task, they may do so simply based on their own opinions and bias. However, despite opinion being subjective, it isn't difficult for anyone to construct rational arguments to support most of these opinions. There are easily enough films of genre with which to compare Transformers, and at least enough consensus on what constitutes 'good' filmmaking for a reasonable debate.

None of this requires comparing Bay to Bergman or Orci to Tolkien which seems to be the basis of your objection.

I think it's a bit late, but please do. It would sound considerably less stupid.

And? So are most movies. This doesn't make them suddenly immune from critics or fans. This is beginning to sound perilously like one of those arguments where somebody tries to tell me that if Transformers was different in even the tiniest way it wouldn't achieve any of this. Which is just idiotic.

And no-one is asking it to be either. They might suggest it could be a touch smarter, or funnier or well constructed. That is different.

I don't think it's expectation. Perhaps hope. Directors peak and trough like any other artist. The idea that they won't seek to broaden their horizons within their work (even Michael Bay) is somewhat unfair.

None of which has any bearing on what we are discussing, which is critical repsonse to the films. Are fans (or critics) to adjust their opinions based on profitshare agreements with merchandisers? Not that most of thing things people bitch about would even remotely affect any of this.

Well isn't this true of almost anything? I think there is enough 'definition' to at least allow leeway for argument.

I'm not sure we should be using the word 'failure' here - somebody is going to think that I'm suggesting TF was a failure...but to answer the question - in the critics eyes, or indeed the eyes of anyone who had reservations with the food, isn't it a failure?

Yes I got that, I just don't think this is what's happening AT ALL. If all tentpole summer movies (or even all movies) were alike I'd have to allow this, but in recent years we've been blessed with some exceptionally well crafted 'blockbusters'. It becomes much harder to suggest that nay-sayers are finding flaws using unfair standards, when they are able to draw comparisons much closer to home.

I'm not usually in the position of defending film critics, but given the entirely reasonable and - lets face it, not unexpected - tone of the Empire review I'm just a bit suprised at some of the replies. The review makes it abundantly clear that those who enjoyed the first film with like this one too. It also highlights that many of the things that recieved less positive responses from quite a lot of people, are also present and correct e.g. irritating sidekicks, dumb humour and blink-and-you'll-miss-them use of characters.

Seems like something for 'lovers' and 'haterz' both.

 

That phrase seems to call our for something more intellectual, and less of an adrenaline roller coaster rush. It also seems to imply that the reviewer has a refined taste, and dislikes stooping so low into a movie that lacked brains.

The problem lies in the fact that not every reviewer compares Transformers to Iron Man, Harry Potter, Terminator or Wolverine. Phrases which go along the lines of "if you like a mindless action flick where you can leave your brains at the door" would seem to suggest they're comparing it to movies more intellectual in nature.

It could be different, it could have been better. But to expect a different approach from the same team of writers, the same production house, and the same director; to expect them to change their approach after a hugely successful first film, is kinda idiotic too.

I'm not saying Transformers is perfect. Rather, i'm pragmatic enough to know that its pointless to hope for anything better story wise or character wise because that was never the central driving force behind the franchise anyway.

He may or may not change. But whichever it is, its fine with me because that's his style and he's comfortable with it.

Rather, I would just prefer people to have more realistic expectations. Instead of being idealistic.

Yes, in the eyes of people who had reservations about the food, its a failure.
But in the eyes of the restaurant whos making hefty profits, its a success.
Thus, why would the restaurant change anything if they're earning money?

Unless ROTF bombs at the box office, and the studios want a reboot with different writers/director, then I would expect more of the same in TF3.

I'm still reserving judgement until I see the movie for myself.
It could still turn out to be well-crafted, or otherwise. Despite how learned these movie critics portray themselves to be, their words don't hold much water with me.

 

EASY. The early reviewers are simply not looking for the stuff we look for. Imagine how much we'd die if the first 20 minutes was Soundwave coming down to Earth doing bad-ass shit? We'd give the movie 50 out of 10! But a normal reviewer might be like...."WTF"?

So why people are worried about what the reviewers are saying is beyond me. I'd be more worried about what the general consesis is HERE at tfw2005 in 2-3 weeks time.

 

Some crappy cell phone pics of units from the game

Playable Aerialbot


Playable Protectobot

 

*Slight spoilers in this post*

As Transformers fans, I think we'll all find some enjoyment in it. You have to remember most reviewers know next to nothing about the franchise. Not to sound harsh, but it IS directed by Michael Bay. He can make one hell of an action scene, but his films always lack in basically every other department. This film will be no exception, as it sounds like it may be his most action-oriented film yet.

Needless to say, I can see why it isn't scoring so hot with the general reviewers who don't really care about the franchise. Obviously I haven't seen it yet, but it sounds like a lot of the problems of the first one are repeated. My biggest fear is that the movie will feel rushed and is taking on more than it should have. Heck, it sounds like the movie's namesake, The Fallen, is tacked on and that the already semi-developed Megatron could have filled his role with some alterations.

I imagine as long as you go in knowing that it isn't suppose to be taken as an epic movie on par with other summer blockbusters like The Dark Knight, you'll enjoy it. It will disappoint us all in certain aspects, but thats because we are the fandom and our expectations have always been impossibly high.

 

Just because it delivers on something we were promised doesn't mean it can't be a let down in other areas.

Also focusing on the robots also meant more care was put into their design and personalities, which from the looks of it isn't what we got.

 

why? probably because those who enjoyed the first film most likely enjoyed this one as well.

ergo... equally as good