Of coursr, after all, Dionysus's phallus festival probably ended centuries ago.

 

People don't want it to be Shakespeare. Only incredibly stupid people that have no other frame of reference try desperately to convince everyone else that anything fractionally more complex than Megan Fox showing her tits is somehow 'Shakespeare'. Though how this makes The Bard 'shit' is beyond me. The two are utterly unrelated...

You're kidding me right? It's news to you that the Ancient (the clue is in the title folks) Greeks performed plays? Before Shakespeare?

Shakespeare wrote and staged his plays during the period from about 1594 to 1611. In England. The Ancient Greeks were over a thousand miles away and almost two thousand years earlier with the beginnings of their theatre. Will is not regarded as the inventor of theatre, but simply as one of it's master craftsmen. None of which has any bearing on whether you should like Shakespeare or not...

 

Oh, come now; enjoy the film if you will, but don't try and make out it has anything decent going on with either it's plot or characters...

AAAARGH! 

 

Ahh...now we get to the truth of the matter. 

 

Personally, I think that people who think members literally meant a Shakespearan play style for the movies are far more stupid.

When the OP used Shakespeare, he didn't mean it as in MAN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE SHAKESPEARE'S INFLUENCE IN ROBERTO'S WRITING, he meant that the movie isn't as stupid as hyperboleous whiners make it sound like ("this movie had no plot" etc. etc., the usual ******ry)

However, I probably didn't help when I did the same misunderstanding on purpose for humorous purposes, I've noticed that lately, my dead-pan posting style always makes me sound serious, I mean, just look at the second poster, guy actualy thought I was seriously requesting a lock.

 

Yup.

If it's of any consolation, I knew that you didn't want a thread lock.

 

Actually, there is a pretty good "down blouse" shot right after Megatron shoots Sam.

 

For a bunch of self-proclaimed creative people, I think it just shows a lack of imagination, and inability to properly compare works of art. Regardless, poor comparisons are poor comparisons. Doesn't matter whether it's comparing literature to a film script, or a law you disagree with to facism. Hyperbole works both ways, and word choice, even on a message, is important.

 

Exactly.

 

I don't think ROTF had any real depth that wasn't basically set up in the comics and/or the first movie.

Shakespeare was good because he set everything up well, had constant character development. Heck, sometimes even in his innuendo, he cleverly hid some development. There was about maybe 10 minutes that in ROTF.

Not only that, Shakespeare's plays are constantly analyzed, discussed, and even performed to this very day.

There is honestly no comparing ROTF and Shakespeare, without using opinion.

Point A, good. Twin Twist specifically said to quit it with the locking requests.

Point B, bad.

 

If Revenge of the Fallen is equal to the works of Shakespeare then not only am I the Queen of England but I can sing just like Freddie Mercury from Queen as well.

Shakespeare wrote plays where he had a vision of where the characters and story was going. Revenge of the Fallen felt like the schizophrenic result of something being written by a group of people with no clear vision of where things were going.

Not saying Shakespeare was perfect, but you didn't end up with plot culdesacs and the plot jumping all over the place like an ADD kid after a six pack of Mountain Dew. I'm not even sure if you can say a character having their personality shift for no reason is character development.

Just felt like your standard alien dooms day film where the characters are just there to set up the next CGI shot to show off what special effects can do now. It's nice if you need something to show off what your new Blu-Ray player can do, but I wouldn't watch the movie for either it's poor attempt at a story or the sad attempt at characters.

 

If you want intellectual stimulation perhaps you should try reading books. Movies are for entertainment, and Revenge of the Fallen does that. It entertains.

 

BALLZ

Do I need to say more?

 

I keep reading that over and over, and I don't think you addressed his point. Or you did, and I just can't parse your response. Could you try rephrasing that?

Oh, and "facism" is just screaming for a "GIVE ME YOUR FACE" joke, but I honestly can't think of one. I really don't know why I find that meme so entertaining. It's better than "over 9000".

 

That's a load of BS. Books are every bit as capable of being dumb and superficial entertainment.

Movies; Film - it's just a medium. Whether that medium is used for intellectual stimulation or dumbass entertainment is entirely down to the director. And I happen to think that if it'd been put together a little more thoughtfully, it would've been a lot more entertaining.

 

To be fair, Shakespeare's plot were better constructed because he generally wrote his plays be combining two other plays from his era.

 

I disagree with you.

 

I mostly agree with you, especially on the medium part. But I somewhat disagree on the fact that a book (literature, not comic book) is just as capable of being dumb and superficial.

Television / Cinema apply to two more senses than the book does. Vision and hearing. As a result, some moviemakers can choose to apply the weight of the film to visual and auditory areas. It's hard to find a book that will cause as much discomfort as Jim Carey's tedious antics, or Transformer 2's explosion headaches. Add to the fact that most people are more willing to see a movie than read a book, it makes the movies more popular, ergo, more susceptible to criticism and comparisons.

[Like God of War. Because it's the most popular hack and slash game there is, anytime a medieval hack n' slash game appears, anyone is quick to label it as a God of War clone ... despite the fact that God of War is a rip-off of Devil May Cry (which is a rip-off of Sword of the Berserk, which is a rip-off of blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda...)]

While I once again, state that there is no need for a movie to be the deepest, thought provoking material of the year to be amusing, there is also no need to be extremely shallow and plain.

Meh, maybe I'm just spoiled by the Dark Knight and expect too much from Tformers ...

 

A movie doesn't need to be an arthouse borefest to at least try and be intellectually engaging. Terminator 2: Judgement Day is an exciting action film that hasn't been matched yet in my humble opinion but also contains just enough interesting points on destiny, guilt and the human condition to make one sit and think a minute.

And books are also capable of being shallow, tepid and tedious affairs: need I point out the collected works of Stephanie Meyer, Christopher Poalini or Matthew Reily?

Again I'll paraphrase Yahtzee Crowshaw: "I don't expect every film to spark a revolution but it could at least let off one measly (intellectual) firework"

I think that Transformers deserves a little better than what its getting in terms of its story.

 

I find it amusing that for the most part it's young teenagers debating the merits of the bard.

 

 

Ain't it always?