Why did the critcs like TF1 better than AOE?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Dmhead, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. Unicron9

    Unicron9 Chaos Bringer 9

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Posts:
    3,388
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +597
    I think despite all the hardcore TF fan complaints and accusations, the first Transformers did a great job of bringing the bots to the big screen in a somewhat believable way, and the addition of Cullen as Prime and other little G1 splashes sealed the deal. From there they could have gone further into the Transformers universe and gotten a bit less wacky with designs, but instead it just got more and more wacky and less and less Transformers, to the point where now half of them dont even Transform. They become particles that fly around and reform...
    Also maybe ROTF left such a bad taste in so many people's mouths that no Bay TF movie will ever be called "good" by humanity in general again. Only by the TF movie fans.
     
  2. Ash from Carolina

    Ash from Carolina Junior Smeghead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Posts:
    14,662
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +880
    So if I understand where the thread is going that we have reached the point where are arguing on people's opinion of opinions.
     
  3. Digilaut

    Digilaut I'm Mary Poppins, y'all!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Posts:
    10,736
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    257
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Likes:
    +218
    Sorry, I simply can't agree with this.

    Yes, chunks of movies will always be subjective, but to say there's no way to grade any of them, that it's all 'complete bullshit' and that whoever is claiming that is sitting on their 'wannabe film school high-horses'..sorry, that's just wrong in my opinion, and also plain rude.

    It's one thing to disagree with one another, as we've all done in this thread, but there's no need for that.

    An extremely simplified hypothesis: put two movies that are basically the same next to each other (same story, characters, etc.), but have one created by a competent team and one created by an incompetent team. See how different the end results will be. Don't claim that it all comes down to just opinion.

    There are techniques that work, and there are techniques that don't work. Of course movies are work of art, of course parts will always remain dependant on taste. Of course there will always be the odd one out - that movie that's considered great despite low expectations, or the one that's disliked despite being brilliant. They're subject to the time they're made in as well. And one may simply not care for the material.

    And even then you can still form a general consensus about a movie and its quality - And with general consensus I don't mean 'what the masses like'. I mean what people who know what they're doing think about it, overall. I completely trust regular Joe to tell me if he had fun with a movie, but I don't trust him to tell me if it was a good movie.
    Not everyone reviewing movies is that stereotypical stuck-up critic that people keep using as a straw-man argument whenever their favorite movie gets a bad rating. That person that failed to become a successful director himself and is now spending time on the sidelines. No. It's people who've spent their time learning about the material and thus are able to analyze the product in as fair a way as possible.
    (and no, that doesn't mean I blindly follow critic reviews, although I'm sure somebody would love to spin it that way)

    Finally, saying that artwork is only as good as the person watching it deems...ouch. A piece of art might go into a direction you don't care for, but then it can still -in that field- be a better piece than another trying to do something similar.
    Artists aren't spending years honing their skills, figuring out what works and doesn't just so it can all boil down to opinion.
    Again, taste IS involved, and it's a complex situation as -like movies- some bits might be better, and some might not, but that's not all of it.

    But that's all just my opinion. :) 


    This really is the last thing I'll say about it. I've made my point, and apparently people don't agree. That's fine.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  4. CKPRIME

    CKPRIME Lighter of Darkest Hours

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Posts:
    3,214
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,382
    You haven't demonstrated any of that to be true? What are the common standards that the film making consensus agrees upon to objectively demonstrate one movie is better than another?
     
  5. AutobotJazz1

    AutobotJazz1 The best there is...

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Posts:
    3,582
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +12
    Yes, it seems so. Dont even feel lke its worth trying to post on this thread anymore...
     
  6. Noideaforaname

    Noideaforaname Pico, let's go up to Zuma

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Posts:
    8,326
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +533
    So, objectively speaking, a slashed tire is no better or worse than an intact, properly inflated tire.




    .... riiiiight.
     
  7. Ash from Carolina

    Ash from Carolina Junior Smeghead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Posts:
    14,662
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +880
    It's not the simplest thing in the world to explain over an internet post because there is a lot of nuance that is hard to convey over a short post. You often need examples so people can compare the same element from different films to see how some people knocked it out of the ball park and people just messed it all up. And you need to be explaining this to a person that can accept that is possible to compare artistic works to other artistic works.

    I know nothing about wine and I couldn't judge wines because no one has taught me the things that make one the best of the best and another wine a blah vintage. But I can accept that there are standards for judging wine and that's why one vintage might be worth a crazy amount of money and another vintage would be almost worthless.
     
  8. CKPRIME

    CKPRIME Lighter of Darkest Hours

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Posts:
    3,214
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,382
    Nope, that's still based on people's opinions. It is all subjective. I guarantee there are people who will debate all day about what wine is better than the other. Also, just because something is more valuable than something else in no way means it's better.
     
  9. Smashs

    Smashs Internet: Pure Truth Moderator TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    7,061
    News Credits:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    282
    Location:
    WY
    Likes:
    +419
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    I absolutely will not have "good or bad" dictated to me by anyone. If people want to follow what someone else says, more power to them.

    So quantify whatever objective/subjective material you want. At the end of the day if a person likes something, it's good to them. Nothing else matters.
     
  10. peteynorth

    peteynorth TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    898
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +81
    Look, if you like something, fine, that’s great, but that doesn’t make it good.

    Pointing out plot holes is quantifiable. Pointing out nonsensical situations or actions is quantifiable. Deviation from established continuity is quantifiable.

    Now things like horrible dialogue, absurd actions and interactions, blatant pandering, over-the-top…everything, these and many other things can be considered subjective (but anyone saying the case for these hasn’t been made is…well, I won’t insult anyone, but it’s been f’n made).

    All of these things are negatives, and all of them apply to the last 3 TF movies (and some to the first). And saying that there’s no valid way outside of opinion to judge one movie as being better than another is stupid. As Digilaut pointed out, there is a lot of subjectivity and there are gray areas, but make no mistake, there are tools and methods that can evaluate how good movies are. Godfather isn’t better than Johnny Dangerously because of people’s opinions. Jaws isn’t better than Sharknado because of people’s opinions. District 9 isn’t better than Earth to Echo because of people’s opinions. They’re better because they’re better. Better scripts, better dialogue, better acting, better scene selection, etc. Lots of different reasons they’re better, and all valid.

    Now, I will not lump TF1 in with Godfather, Jaws and District 9 (it’s not fit to carry the jocks of movies unfit to carry their jocks), but it is simply better than the other three TF movies. Yes, Bay learned to back the camera up a bit more to leave enough room for robots this size to be put in later, but otherwise all later movies were a step down (many steps down in some cases). This is my opinion, but frankly, there’s no shortage of reasons that support it.
     
  11. Smashs

    Smashs Internet: Pure Truth Moderator TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    7,061
    News Credits:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    282
    Location:
    WY
    Likes:
    +419
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    Yea, all that says is 'good is quantifiable for reasons'. Well, I disagree. Call it stupid all you want. It's stupid to me to let someone else guage what I feel is good or bad.
     
  12. uruseiranma

    uruseiranma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,279
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    237
    Likes:
    +111
    TF1 to me, is about the best that Michael Bay has done...and I believe that's probably because he had Steven Spielberg supervising him through the 'a boy and his Transformer' story.

    Seriously, there's a little more heart in 2007's TF, than almost any other Bay film...well, maybe DOTM is the other exeception for me.

    As well, there were some general moments of awe that made it seem like an old Amblin film: the Spielberg-produced films that made you think adventure could be right in your own backyard (like Goonies, Back to the Future, and Gremlins).

    Yeah, the hackers and even the parents got annoying at times, but it was one of the few times where the action sequences worked..as well as the 'Arrival to Earth' sequence. One minor scene I like in that is Sam and Mikaela running through some tall grass to see what landed near Griffith Park. There's that great feeling of 'stuff is going on here, let's be a part of it!'

    As well, Steve Jablonsky's score had some wonderful musical cues, and I still listen to that soundtrack every once in awhile.

    Sadly, that film served as a great set up, that was deep-sixed when they gave Bay more control of that sequel. Everyting from ROTF onward, has largely felt like Spielberg backed away and let the filmmakers do their thing.
     
  13. CKPRIME

    CKPRIME Lighter of Darkest Hours

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Posts:
    3,214
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +1,382
    I have to disagree. So I am guessing since you specifically pointed out nonsensical situations, you think they make a movie bad? Do you realize the the entire premise of Jaws is nonsensical? Also I think you are massively over rating District 9.
     
  14. transformervic1

    transformervic1 HI!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Posts:
    4,559
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Likes:
    +931
    Well regardless if a movie is "factually" good or bad, if person#1 loves it, then to them, it's good. When person#2 doesn't like it, they can't help but see it as bad.

    Now typically, both people will rave about how good or how bad the same film is. But in most cases, they'll rave about it with people like them(people who like it, people who don't)

    That's severely not the case here at TFW. I understand free speech is a thing and it's the best thing on the planet, but what is the purpose of continuing this pointless argument with people from either side constantly throwing their 2cents at each other? Does it make the people who make these films want to change their ways and do better? ahem...

    Hell. No.

    Does it change people's perceptions of these movies?

    Hell. No.

    This is why I only stick around the movie forum when a new TF movie is in the works. Too much opinionated shit after "movie season". I mean, it gets bad during movie season, but at least there's hype for the new movie then. I mean, shit! whether you're right about the films being factually bad or otherwise, what are the paragraphs explaining why for exactly?
     
  15. Chopperface

    Chopperface Holtzmanned

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Posts:
    11,013
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Location:
    Holtzbert
    Likes:
    +1,112
    Was trying to read through this thread so I could formulate a better reply, but it feels like taking a long, sweaty trek through a desert.

    Or worse, a Disney theme park with their overpriced drinks.

    Never mind.
     
  16. Galvatross

    Galvatross Shrekformers: More (layers) than meets the eye Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Posts:
    3,497
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +2,051
    Bravo. Bravo again.

    I'm unapologetic in my love for AOE, and I think it's it legitimately better than any of the other films, but if others disagree and have their valid reasons as to why one of the other ones is best, then that's their opinion, and I respect it. I think saying that one is factually better than the other is 1) not correct; we all have our opinions as to what constitutes a better plot, better characters, better dialogue, better tone, etc. For example, I think the plot for AOE is more logical than TF 1's, but many others would disagree 2) it's not conductive to civil discussion. The fact that we're debating the quality of the films makes it debatable.

    I would like to throw in my two cents as to why the fandom is so divided on AOE. AOE is basically to the movieverse what the 1986 film is to the G1 cartoon and what Beast Machines is to Beast Wars, although more like 1986. The 1986 film kills off a lot of the Season 1 and 2 cast, introduces Unicron and the Unicronian Decepticons, the Quintessons and their Sharkticon minions, Junkions, and a new cast of Autobots among other things. Also, the personalities of some characters, Grimlock for instance, change in the subsequent season.

    Beast Machines switches things up from Beast Wars. Many of the personalities have changed, and now Megatron is the leader of the Vehicons, and it introduces a lot of concepts related to sparks.

    In AOE most of the previous Transformer cast is dead, the human cast is 100% different, and new characters and concepts for the movieverse are shown or hinted at, including Lockdown and the Creators, humans working with Lockdown to destroy all Transformers on Earth, human-made Transformers, Transformium, Megatron manipulating the humans to acquire a new body, army, and the Seed, and the Dinobots. Also, Prime has lost his faith in humanity, Bumblebee is insecure, and most of the other surviving Autobots openly despise humans for good reason.

    All three drastically change the focus and scopes of their universes while sharing many things in common with pre-existing fiction. 1986 and Season 3 still have Autobots vs. Decepticons, but it's also Unicron trying to destroy all and the Quints trying to regain control over Cybertron and manipulating the Cons into doing their work. Beast Machines still has Megatron as the big bad against the Maximals, but he now leads the Vehicons on Cybertron. AOE still has Megatron/Galvatron opposing the Autobots, but all Autobots and Decepticons have enemies in the forms of Lockdown, the mysterious Creators, and humans.

    Some people, myself included, like the changes; others do not.

    That's all I'm saying on the subject. Let's just like what we like and let others like what they like, and let us respectfully agree or disagree on the quality of films.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  17. Autovolt 127

    Autovolt 127 Get In The Titan, Prime!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    82,270
    News Credits:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Likes:
    +670
    very well said.
     
  18. Toolala

    Toolala Breast Master

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Posts:
    809
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Location:
    Israel
    Likes:
    +485
    Because AOE was a very bad movie.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. daniel 97

    daniel 97 Autobots' second in command

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Posts:
    3,782
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Location:
    Wherever Bumblebee is
    Likes:
    +1,481
    Google+:
    YouTube:
    Okay, first of all I have no idea what you mean by "almost none transformers character" because well it actually had some of the classic characters from the G1 cartoon from both factions - Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, Jazz, Ratchet, Megatron, Starscream, even Barricade was in a way meant to represent the evil version of Prowl I remember, right? On the other hand AOE was filled with non G1 characters - Drift, Crosshairs, Lockdown, Vehicons, of course excluding the Dinobots and Prime and Bee, also Hound and Galvatron. But what I'm trying to say is that the first movie actually felt like it was based on the 80s series and not just because some characters that were in that show reappeared in the live-action movie, it's because there were so many other throwbacks to the original - Jazz's transformation and whatnot...even Optimus' and Sam's little dialogue about how they learned our language is a remake of sorts of the 1986 movie one with Hot Rod and Wreck Gar. In the 1986 movie Hot Rod asks Wreck Gar: "How did you learn to talk like that?" to which he replies with an explanation that they've watched Earth television and you know how it goes in the 07, it's a slightly updated version of that same dialogue with Prime explaining it with the WORLD WIDE WEB instead of TV. Another thing is the designs of the robots. Look at how reminisent Optimus' robot mode is to his G1 counterpart - windshield as chest, pipes sticking out on his back, front panel of the truck as his abs and more, Jazz had the visor, Ratchet is an ambulance. Hound and Galvatron from AOE on the other hand look nothing like their G1 versions. And finally and I think most importantly this was the movie that actually resurrected the TRANSFORMERS as a franchise and brought them to life as in means of bringing them to the big screen. It was something like we've never seen before and even if TLK is as good as the first one that experience will never be the same since that was the movie that introduced us to these characters.
     
  20. Hotrod94573

    Hotrod94573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Posts:
    446
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Likes:
    +425
    Um what? The autobots in AOE are the most likable and human autobots we've seen
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page