DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

And another winner! We have a tie!

In my opinion, Bay's a pretty good special fx guy, but I would never want him directing another movie. Like any movie. He's just not very good at it. And especially a franchise like Transformers which he clearly doesn't give a rats ass about.

A few people have already said, and so have I; I just want a Transformers movie which would be greater than, or equal to any of the Marvel movies out there.

 

I think it's mostly warranted.

 

And I have no idea why.
The story was uninspired and flaccid, the "villain" was nothing more than Harry Stamper gone bad. Some of the characters were mis-cast.

Dear Lord, TF '07 was lazy writing on full display, and that same lack of creativity forged Star Trek but was saved by the stylistic directing of Abrams and the flashy VFX.

One CANNOT hold up the mediocrity that was Star Trek as some sort of cinematic standard when the cranial flatulence that penned it was the same lackluster mindset that wrote TF '07.

Star Trek can only improve... and so far the trailers make it look as if it has.
But then again so has GI Joe.

 

Finally someone gets it! God I hate how the internet does this. Every damn friggin article makes it sound like bay is directing ninja turtles when hes NOT! for crying out loud. I suppose its good for Jonathan Liebesman as he probably just lets bay take all the heat and people just seem to forget that hes directing it and bays not. Christ. It just blows my mind that people are like this.

 

The only problem I see so far is the fact that the person who started this thread has linked random hate on another Bay movie solely for the purpose of getting a flame war... he even states the reason as being due to the comments on an article about Ninja Turtles (And lets be honest... I'm pretty sure no one here thinks its going to be a good film regardless of Bay's input)

 

Already pointed out... as one of the several producers Bay has some choice over casting... meaning that the casting of Megan Fox (Which he proudly stated on his page) was likely his choice...

Though Bay doesn't deserve any of the hate for his statement about the turtles being aliens... at that time the official script (Currently available on Youtube) stated that they were aliens from Dimension X... this may/may not have been changed... either way he doesn't deserve hate for that as he was simply relaying what was in the official script at the time.

Though I would still like to point out that Bay and the other producers do have some leverage over the script - given that it is the basic role of a producers to make sure certain parts of the script are possible... e.g. if they view a scene as being difficult to film in time or too expensive they can get the writer to change it. Also the following;

"Unless the film is supposed to be based on an original script, the producer has to find an appropriate screenwriter. If an existing script is considered flawed, they have to order a new version and sometimes they decide to hire a script doctor. The producer also has the final say on which film director gets hired. They also have the last word when it comes to casting questions"

 

Honestly though in terms of box office...

Avengers;
Budget -
$220 million
Box office -
$1,511,757,910

Transformers (2007)
Budget -
$150 million
Box office -
$709,709,780

Transformers ROTF;
Budget -
$200 million
Box office -
$836,303,693

Transformers DOTM;
Budget -
$195 million
Box office -
$1,123,746,996


so put simply what the box office is telling us - If you want a good action film it helps to have well established characters and plots... in other words "They need to be well crafted and entertaining" otherwise you fall flat in terms of box office revenue.

Also pointing out that Avengers with one film almost grossed more box office revenue than Transformers (2007) and Transformers ROTF combined...

 

I don't hold up Star Trek as some "cinematic standard" - I think it simply did an excellent job with those characters, especially the Spock and Kirk relationship - giving it a new take while not forgetting how it all started. I thought it treated the original characters well and with respect, set up the alternate timeline well, and created a great jumping off point for a new franchise with those characters. I was invested in the characters while I was watching it. That always scores high with me. It was an action movie that didn't forget its characters, which is why I used it as an example. And I didn't feel any of the main characters were miscast, so I'm coming from a completely different place there.

I think TF07 was a fine set up for a series - it wasn't perfect, but it was quite a bit better than what followed. I've always maintained that the first TF movie was a solid introduction movie, and that it's the sequels where the ball got truly dropped (probably because Spielberg stepped back and Bay became more confident in what he wanted to do).

I think Star Trek was better character wise, and I'm quite confident I'll enjoy the next Star Trek, unlike how I feel about the TF sequels.

Whatever happened with those writers on ROTF (the writers strike and Bay are both HUGE factors), it doesn't change how I feel about Star Trek. Was it perfectly written? No. Did it treat the characters with respect and have solid character interaction? Yes. I'm sure Abrams was a factor for why I liked it, as a director has the power to improve or worsen a movie. Bay is an example of the latter. Most of the better moments in TF07 were "Spielbergian" in nature.

 

I agree. A person could go in to see Avengers without having seen any of the other Marvel movies or even never having picked up a comic book in their life and they would still get enjoyable interesting characters.

If you had seen the previous films it's like you were being rewarded by being able to get more out of the movie than people who had not seen the previous Marvel films.

If you were a Marvel fan then it was even more of treat because there was the feeling that the production team wanted to make you happy. Instead of being punished for being a Marvel comics and cartoon fan you felt you were being rewarded for your fandom.

The Transformers movies really haven't provided good characters for the lay person and it's almost as if you are being punished for being a fan of Transformers in the past. Also I could maybe see the excuse of not much character building in the first film because they have to establish the fictional universe and every thing for the brand new fans, but we have had three films where the only advancement seems to have been how weak can Megatron get.

With the massive budgets and the army of talented people working on films you expect the ultimate version of the character like live action J. Jonah Jameson, but with Transformers I just always felt like I had seen a better version of the character somewhere else.

 

This is true. The Director has a lot of power over the movie (obviously) but it is also true that many times fans anger can be misplaced because since the director is the overarching power over the entire movie, he can be blamed.

However, seeing as he's a producer in Ninja Turtles why is he getting so much flak? Why is he hated because Megan Fox is April? Surely then by this logic Steven Spielberg is to blame for Megan Fox in both Transformers movies and Rosie Huntington-Whitely in TF3? Also by this logic, the producers of the films that people love are responsible for their success and not the director. My point is that people enjoy redefining roles and feigning ignorance for the sake of argument.

Also, I'm not saying that it's an action movie, it's not supposed to have good writing etc, I'm saying that people need to lower their expectations when it comes to these sort of films. The focus is on action - action is paramount. The movies that score the most are dramas where the actor's performances, story and writing are more highlighted, films like The Dark Knight Rises, Titanic, Lincoln and so on.

From IGN, Transformers got 7/10, Expendables got 6-7/10, The Transporter got 7/10, Spider-man got 7/10. These are the first films that came to mind that I looked up. The Dark Knight in comparison got a 10/10 because this was more of a drama than it was an action movie, it focused more on the characters and story than it did action. The level of action wasn't as "grand" when compared to other action movies.

 

Well actually, I thought I could go onto the movie discussion part of the forum would start a discussion so we can discuss things about the movies. Not every thread has to be "Who should be in TF 4?" and so on.

I just did the math and here's what I got. The Avengers according to you grossed $1,511,757,910 but when I added the amount made by TF1 and TF2 I got $1,546,013,473 That's more than the Avengers.

Not to mention the hype built up since Iron Man in 2008. The Avengers is basically a sequel to the films preceding it so if you like you can find out how much Captain America, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and The Incredible Hulk made.

When talking about the Avengers I won't deny that Whedon did a good job focusing on the characters even if I disliked what he did with a few of them. I think that what would help the Transformers movies was if there were moments away from the action where the actions could reflect on what happened in the war, for example Ratchet unable to fix Bumblebee, how does Bumblebee feel about not being able to speak, how does Optimus feel about the way it ended and so on.

How much the movies made however isn't very relevant to the conversation, I just want to know how people feel about the hate towards Micheal Bay, whether it's justified or not. I'm liking the answers I've been getting and how civil everyone is so far.

 

People castigate Bay by saying it's not the writers- just jook a Star Trek as proof!

So, yes, lets include that celebration of high mediocrity in the list of charges against those guys. Their ideas were unoriginal and could be found in STAR TREK: KILLING TIME and BACK TO THE FUTURE 2. The relationships an situations were forced, contrived.

And don't even get me started on that... what is it supposed to be? Production design? A Brewery? Enormous tanks over the communications computers? WTF? Floating rock like platforms in the bad guy ship from the video game JOUST? Or a ship that looks like a tumbleweed? Why would a medical bay be flooded with water? Anyone have an explanation for me?

STAR TREK was just a flashy show... nothing more.

 

this still boils down to personal preference over who likes what, and the fact that there are folks who like Bay's movies is their business. I personally loved all three movies. However if you asked what I would have changed in the movies, I would say in the third one I did not like the way Optimus was shown in the third one simply because I liked the ending in the book better. I like the idea of Megs and Optimus having a truce and rebuilding Cybertron together. That's just me though lol
But I liked those movies, and I really was not that impressed with Avengers I saw it twice not because I wanted too either lol

 

If the twins are racist as some people claim because of how they speak, then by the same logic that makes G1 Jazz and Blaster racist for talking as they do. Just a thought for those people who act without thinking.

Rip Scatman 'Jazz' Crothers.

 

I enjoyed all three movies , although each one less than the previous. I dont really judge it by the transformer comics and cartoons. You just cant its off in left field. I found them entertaining and thats all i ask of my movies. Its a reinvention (inferior) of transformers I think. I hope they make a real g1 movie but im not counting on it. However im going to see 4 as i enjoy it enough to keep giving them money.

Loved Avengers of course. I thought the new star trek was fantastic and ive loved star trek as long as transformers. I think JJ did it justice.

 

Thing is his action is HORRIBLE. I would take a huge chunk of time and pages to get into the nitty gritty of it but Film Crit Hulk did a great job talking about what make action scenes work:

HULK EXPLAIN ACTION SCENES! WITH SPECIAL GUEST TOM TOWNEND! – DAY 1 OF 3 | FILM CRIT HULK! HULK BLOG!

HULK EXPLAINS ACTION SCENES – ACTION STRIKES BACK! WITH SPECIAL GUEST TOM TOWNEND! DAY 2 OF 3 | FILM CRIT HULK! HULK BLOG!

HULK EXPLAIN ACTION SCENES! RETURN OF THE ACTION! (NOW WITH MORE EWOKS) WITH SPECIAL GUEST TOM TOWNEND! – DAY 3 OF 3 | FILM CRIT HULK! HULK BLOG!

And to show the guy is open minded:

FELLOW CRITIC TODD GILCHRIST HAS A UNIQUE TALENT FOR DISCERNING THE COUNTER-INTUITIVE REASONS FOR WHY PEOPLE RESPOND TO CERTAIN MOVIES AND HULK THINK HE CAME UP WITH GOOD, NON-PATRONIZING THEORY ON THIS MATTER. TODD’S POINT THAT WHAT MAKES BAY’S ACTION “WORK” IS THAT HE IS ONE OF ONLY DIRECTORS REMAINING WHO REALLY TRIES TO CONVEY A SENSE OF MASSIVE SCALE TO HIS ACTION SCENES (GIANT BATTLES IN DOWNTOWN LA! ALL OF CHICAGO! BLOWING UP LANDMARKS! GLOBE TROTTING!). THIS WAS A VERY POPULAR CONVENTION IN 90′S CINEMA AND HE NOT ONLY DID IT THE “BEST” THEN, BUT HE SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE STILL DOING IT TODAY. WHICH MEANS THERE REALLY IS A PLACE FOR IT IF THAT MAKES SENSE. LIKEWISE, TODD MENTIONS THAT BAY ALSO ONE OF THE FEW WHO STILL REALLY COMMITTED TO INTEGRATING PRACTICAL EFFECTS WITH CGI. MOST OF US BITCH ABOUT “WEIGHTLESS CGI” IN SO MANY FILMS THESE DAYS, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT… ISN’T BAY’S CGI OFTEN PRETTY WELL-INTEGRATED INTO REAL WORLD “WEIGHT”? THIS IS A COMPARITIVE STATEMENT OF COURSE BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF TIMES HE DOESN’T, BUT ON THE WHOLE HE SEEMS TO BE ON THE INTEGRATING PRACTICAL SIDE. HECK, THROW IN THE FACT THAT BAY TRULY WARY OF 3D (INCLUDING HIS OWN RECENT OUTPUT) AND IT MAY SEEM LIKE BAY MIGHT HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD INSTINCTS TO WORK WITH.(13)

 

The Avengers was extremely well-written. The characters were developed, and when they fought there were tangible stakes. Transformers only builds one relationship successfully in all three films: Sam and Bumblebee. Not responding to everything, just the Avengers point, because you can't really compare the two in the ways OP did.

They also talk about not being able to read, and generally act... well, stupid. Jazz was, in his time, for all intents and purposes, a cool black guy. It was stereotyping, but not negative stereotyping.

 

Yes. Wonderfully so.

 

 

The Star Trek Reboot had some great moments (and I'd go as far as to say the casting was really well done), but there was something "off" with the story. The first time I saw it I thought the story was fine and entertaining, but the more often I've seen it (and it was on like every day on various channels last year), and the more I've thought about it, the more and more I notice massive holes in the story and that it really isn't that well thought out. As always, Redlettermedia did a pretty good job tearing into it. I'm afraid I can't hold up Star Trek as proof the writers can do great work.

Traditionally, the director has been considered sort of "the final word" in terms of the quality of a film, even if they've been subjected to a ton of outside pressure and conditions outside of their control. Given Bay's prerogative to market himself alongside his pictures (Michael Bay's Transformers A Michael Bay Film), this is going to happen even more with him. This spills over into his Producing work as well, since again, he often attaches his own name (or allows it to be attached) to these films in their promotion. So yes, some of it is simply because the Director/Bay is a convenient scapegoat to heap all the criticism for all areas on a single person, but there's also an element of him "putting himself out there" as a lightning rod for that kind of criticism in the first place (as well as accolades). A lot of the things people criticize him for ARE things he likely would have had something of a say in though, at least theoretically.


I completely disagree, however, that something being an "action film" means we should accept a lower level of writing quality or whatever. If anything, the "tradition" of brainless blow-up buffets in the "action movie" genre should mean we as an audience should be pushing for the audience to advance itself, demanding a focus on plot instead of pyrotechnical pablum. Every other genre can seem to produce films that are well written, thoughtful, and provocative, and even the "action" genre has done so in the past (Robocop, for example, is an objectively well-made piece of cinema in my opinion). We, as consumers, should never lower our expectations, nor should we temper our distaste when offered a product that fails to meet them. This sort of "acceptable mediocrity" would never be acceptable in any other industry, frankly.

I also would disagree that aggregate, numerical reviews are an indication of quality, especially on a site like IGN (which has a history of inflated reviews). I also disagree that only "dramatic" pictures should have good writing, as I feel EVERY picture should have good writing, as there is absolutely no downside to this occurring. The Dark Knight's score, I would propose, is an example of the aforementioned score inflation, due to hype and cultural tautology, not because it is dramatic. The Dark Knight was a great film, but it was by no means perfect. Similarly, if all a film needed to do to be a "better" film was be more dramatic, why would anyone make anything else but dramas?

While all three characters have something of a basis in stereotype, ignoring the nuance, content and context that separates Jazz and Blaster from the Twins and stating that all four are equivalent is just as much of an action bereft of thought. There have been a number of threads focused on the Twins and their characterizations in the last couple years, I recommend you do a search and read through them, as I don't want to derail this thread more than we have already.

 

Racist comes down to more than just a stereotype about how a certain group is perceived by pop culture at the time. To be racist you either need to show stereotypical myths that portray a group as inferior or mythical traits that show a group as superior. For example Nazis would be racist because they perceived a certain subset of Caucasians as superior to other races. The Chinese still have chip on their shoulder because in the past the Europeans, Americans, and Japanese acted as if the Chinese where sub-human which is a racist.

Jazz, Blaster, and other black characters from the 80's weren't racist for having black voice actors who injected some of the black culture but actually anti-racist for their characters being every bit the hero that the other characters were. In many ways I think we can thank Transformers, GI Joe, X-Men and other franchises for people being less racist now than when the cartoons and comic books came out.