This whole thing feels like deja vu.

Bay's movie have a particular audience and that wasn't going to suddenly change with AOE. This film really wasn't that different from his previous efforts so is it any surprise that it's receiving mixed reviews from audiences and is being panned by critics? The same thing happened with ROTF and DOTM. If you liked his previous films than you probably like this one as well. If you thought ROTM and DOTM were almost unwatchable than you probably know what to expect with AOE. Personally I'm not disappointed by AOE because my expectations were nonexistent in the first place. I don't particularly like Bay's work after the first Transformers film and nothing has changed. I'm also not that surprised by the critical response to this film. It's simply more of the same.

 

Very good points here.

I don't know if Bay simply ignores what people say because of all the success Transformers has been since he stepped in as director. But I must admit a movie based on Legos have higher critics ratings.

Instead of interviewing Lorenzo di Bonaventura why not interview Michael Bay himself?

I feel like Lorenzo is always protecting Bay and his Transformers movies.

I can understand how important explosions and special effects are important to these movies but the most important piece to a movie is the story.

I loved AOE, and acknowledged it's flaws and I was appreciative that all that lame humor was gone and how great Lockdown was as the main antagonist.

Aside from plot holes I still enjoyed the movie a lot more than the last two.

And yes the Dinobots, boy what a treat but we still don't know much about them, the history behind Lockdown and those are just some examples.

But I feel like Bay did try to be a bit different this time around but as a fan of his robots, I would also appreciate a little backstory for his characters.

I understand these robots take time to make and are very expensive, but I a little story about these characters could be squeezed in the running time somewhere.

Some perfect examples I can point out is Jetfire and his briefing about the Fallen or Optimus in TF1 explaining how Cybertron was nothing more than a wasteland.

The scripts made for the films are pretty good, but with more emphasis on connecting us with the characters I think could definitively help the critics in changing how they view Transformers.

I'm sure Lorenzo knows what needs to change but the question is will Bay?

 

I've actually got lower back pain from sitting too long in the same position from the movie. Gotta shift.

 

Exactly, I kept thinking that everyone should have already been dead. Even when Megatron thumps that guy in th first movie. But hey, it's just a movie. Doh! Did I just say that and difuse this whole thread? Dang it!

 

Star Wars was already written as a Saga, or the illusion of which. So it was an ongoing story. And original although again a meatphor of history however far removed and abstract. Transformers was not. The next Star Wars films may prove otherwise.

 

Ha, yeah, I was rather squirming in my seat towards the end.

I think one thing that really hurts the robots in these films, and it hurts critic's perceptions of them is just how disposable they are. I know, it's a war yada yada yada. But those franchises that critics at the very least give decent reviews to, all have a stable cast of characters. It's Prime, Megatron, and Bumblebee. Those guys are the big three, and everyone else is either expendable or negated to being a background reoccurring character. I mean, why kill off Lockdown? There was great potential for him to be a very interesting and important character for this trilogy. The three new autobots. Hound has a chance of coming back, but even money that Drift and Crosshairs are gone for the next film.

I said before and I'll say it again, the franchise needs a big screen animated movie. Something along the lines of Beowolf visually.

 

Well I know most are wanting more robot character as opposed to human. Funny thing is, the G1 toon had great bot characterization. They felt, thought, rationalized, sympathized, had comradery (sp). Took time outs to think, they acted like humans. It wasn't all just battle, and they laughed. There were times when they were just chilling out. And it was a cartoon.

 

Really though, we need a scene like Spike and Hound going on a scouting mission and shooting the shit about Earth/Cybertron. That's exactly the type of "more robot" we need as opposed to simply extended action sequences. Those types of interaction will endear the audience towards the robots.

 

You mean character building? That is a technique in story telling to build a background and atmosphere of a character. Didn't really happen in TF's. Had they not killed off bots and built more back story, that would have been better. But again, and someone said it, it does sell more toys. Nice thing about Teenage Mutant Turtles, there's only four. Even brief cameos in Star Wars got a toy representation.

 

Character building? Michael Bay ain't got time for that. He got shit to blow up!

 

I don't know if this has been said before but I just wanted to say that the Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes isn't how good the movie is, just how a percentage of whether or not the critics liked or disliked the film. Below the Tomatometer is a X/10 score which is a better indicator of how good the movie is.

 

Anti-Bay crowd: Bay needs to stop treating the Transformers as props and let them have characters!

*Bay makes a movie where the Autobots get entire scenes dedicated to establishing their characters*

Anti-Bay crowd: He didn't give them characters the right way! Same old crap from Michael Bay!

See the problem? Reviews of Bay's films, especially his Transformers films, have devolved into mean-spirited jabs at the man personally. It's either that or elitist a-holes claiming anyone anyone who likes the films are morons.

Like I said before. Movie criticism has jumped the shark.

 

Sorry - but the "critics don't get it" line is a cop out. It's the same line trotted out by fans of modern art who say the same thing of anyone who thinks an unmade bed isn't art or a squiggle on piece of paper could have been drawn by a 3 year old.

The transformers movies may be a spectacle and may be mindlessly enjoyable - but they are so full of plot holes, poor story telling, poor characterisation, poor dialogue etc - it's actually quite sad. Wall-E got more characterisation in the first 5 minutes of his movie than some of the TFs have got out of four 2.5 hour + movies.

To get 4 movies in without these problems being addressed is sad and does indicate IMO, that Bay has surrounded himself with "yes men". As somebody else pointed out - the 'story', such that it is, seems to be there as nothing more than a vehicle to string one Michael Bay explosive set piece to another. There is little coherence within each movie - let alone between them.

 

The problem is that the Autobots are unlikeable jerks who try to kill each other for almost a third of their total screen time.

The "critics just don't understand" excuse is just that, an excuse. Millions of people love Twilight, too, that doesn't make those books any less terrible, and demonstrably so. The Bay films are bad movies, especially the sequels. They are demonstrably bad filmmaking, especially from a screenwriting standpoint.

People go to see them to see shit blow up and giant robots punch each other and giant robot dinosaurs stampede through China. Everyone criticizing these movies understands that just fine. We just think settling for sitting in the kiddie pool full of piss is ridiculous when there's an Olympic sized infinity pool ten feet away.

These movies can deliver the big explodey thrills and tell good stories with interesting characters and intelligible plots, but, as this interview clearly indicates, the filmmakers have no incentive to do that because big and stupid works every time. Making the Transformers films good films would take effort, and why put in that extra effort when going lowest common denominator in every department except the visual effects (and god love ILM and company for putting 110% into every damn one of these shitshows every time; those guys are the real heroes of these movies and they don't see jack shit of those billions in box office, I can tell you that) sets box office records every time? The only way to change that is for the audience to say "no, we won't reward you for making thoughtless shit and dressing it up with cutting edge special effects," but clearly that is not going to happen.

At this point, the people who find it within themselves to somehow enjoy the Bay movies will simply continue to do that, and those of us who demand more from our film entertainment should either look elsewhere, or blame no one but ourselves when we subject ourselves once again to one of these films. They're known quantities now, and nobody should be surprised by them anymore. Whether you love them or hate them, you know exactly what you're going to get when you plunk down that ticket money.

And on top of that, their tremendous success essentially secures the future of the Transformers brand for another lifetime or two, so all TF fans should, at the very least, view the Bay franchise as a useful nuisance. AoE may be the worst thing I've seen in 2014, but the success of the movie is going to feed the brand and the aspects of it I do love, and the push the Dinobots are getting is going to lead to a lot of Dinobot merch we wouldn't otherwise get, and possibly a Titan-class Trypticon. So in the end, it's all beneficial.

 

This is IMO one of the problems with this franchise. With each move we inexplicably got new characters - whilst old ones were inexplicably dropped.

Take ROTF as an example. Why introduce the Audi bot character - only to kill it off within the first few minutes - using Barricade for this scene would have tied up a plot hole and saved money on CGI that could have better been used elsewhere. It was done for no other reason than to sell one more toy.

Same story with AOE. Sideswipe/Dino could have easily filled the roles of Crosshairs and Drift - yet the latter were dropped inexplicably - and the former appeared from nowhere, no back story nothing.....just hiding in the desert.

 

One positive thing to come out of these movies is that when the franchise gets an inevitable Bay Free reboot - it's likely to be well funded.

TF movies, despite their flaws - seem to be a dead cert at the box office.

 

But this time, they really don't get it. Or at least some of them don't. Did you see the video where the critic said "Fuck Michael Bay"? I quoted some of what his little roundtable session had to offer.

They had no idea why Optimus was being chased by Lockdown. It was stated clearly in the film.

"You think you were born? You were built. And your creators want you back."
"We all work for someone."

He was a bounty. Plain and simple. It was clearly stated that the Creators wanted Prime, at least twice.

How on Earth can you miss that if you're paying attention? If you can miss that entire part of it all, then you're truly not doing your job as a critic and it's then absolutely necessary to call them on their bullshit and say that the critics don't get it.

With a plot point that easy to see/hear, you really shouldn't come forward and say "I don't know what this or that was all about. I didn't get it." It just makes them look REALLY stupid.

 

To make a blanket statement that "critics don't get it" based on a small number who missed the odd plot point is equally stupid IMO. It dismisses the opinion of critics who did catch the plot points - but still thought the movie was flawed.

I am a lifelong TF fan and do enjoy the movies - but I am not so blinded by fanboyism that I can't see their flaws. From an objective point of view - i'd probably rate the TF moves at a similar level to some of the critics. The term "so bad they are good" didn't spring from nowhere........bad movies can be enjoyable, but that doesn't mean they stop being bad movies.

 

Not at all. The point is that if you overthink reality and apply it to the fantasy, the fantasy loses it's wonder.

I'm supposed to believe they can build the Death Star, a mechanical weapon of mass destruction, but a bomb the equivalent of nukes doesn't exist?

But yes, nuclear weapons do exist in the Star Wars extended fiction. Not to mention the point of the scene doesn't matter. The point is realism would ruin the scene.

True, but films don't contribute to health in the way food does. Watching 'bad' films won't USUALLY make you ill, while a steady diet of Taco Bell WILL affect your health. The point of food is to contribute to health and taste good, Taco Bell only fulfills one of those.

Films exist TO entertain, very few films are made with more than that in mind. Usually when there is more to it, it's about spreading propaganda.

This is one of my 'tinfoil hat' agendas, so I'll stop before I launch into my understanding of modern entertainment.

Bravo. I feel every word of this.

Very true. Avatar was virtual tourism with 'the evils of imperialism' overtones.

Two totally different experiences. Though it was in large part to broad sweeping shots of the scenery. The action, in the end, was similar to TFs with a big dumb battle.

I agree somewhat, but disagree somewhat. The Autobots don't just spout one liners. Hound interacts with Crosshairs and Drift, and they come up with a plan. Drift interacts with Bee. They all celebrate Optimus. Crosshairs even grows during the film due to Prime's actions.

Using this basic theme, Superman and Luke Skywalker are variations on the story of Jesus. Nothing is truly original. Not to mention, Drift can't really be shoehorned into tin soldiers.

Most movies feature stereotypes, and common themes. If Hound had died, you would have felt it. Bee definitely. You felt it when Ratchet died, and outside of movie one, he had less character than Drift or Crosshairs. He didn't even show he was the medical officer. Crosshairs and Drift dying wouldn't have much impact, but that's because they never do anything as heroic as Hound, OPtimus and Bee. I thought this was still better than the first 3 movies.

I could objectively write the same about the TF movies. Movie one featured the Transformers discovery and there battle and the realization all modern technology comes from them. Sam grows a pair while getting his first car.

Movie 2 finds him adjusting to college life, complications with his highschool sweet heart, while finding they still love each other, the realization that Megatron has been scheming and working for the Fallen, and the Cons winning by killing Prime.

Movie 3 features Sam having graduated, lost his first love, and feeling like all he's done for the world was pointless. He's jobless and feels inadequate and useless. Megatron's endless schemes are revealed, as well as the realization that Prime's mentor betrayed them long ago. Earth is RAVAGED. Human cities are captured and humanity is about to be enslaved. The unseen Deception human alliance is revealed. Optimus Prime starts to realize he can trust no one. Megatron is revealed to be a true patriot, and is killed for not being willing to sacrifice his home. In the end, earth is their home, and they will defend it with all.

It's all perspective. The McGuffin quest could be likened to Luke's internal quest. Each movie did something different in Transformers as well, in peoples opinions it may not be as well done.

Star Wars gets the gift of as much nostalgia as g1 Transformers. If Star Wars came out today and had 3 movies as big as Transformers, it would run until it wasn't a financial success.

For proof, see Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit (which has turned one movie into 3! really they needed 3 films to tell the story of the Hobbit
?).

There was the camp fire scene and the scene in the default base. The KSI scene was as much about story as action. The reunited scene was quite long. Not to mention, what point is there for them to talk about earth cybertron? Cybertron is dead and the Autobots want to leave earth at this point.

I think the choice to remove the Transformers ability to speak in vehicle mode was a stupid choice, you could have had them all speak through the radio, tune to a certain channel and they can speak. That would add chance for TONS of character, and I thought Bay was dumb for worrying about Knight Rider in reference to the TFs, being that in 2007, Knight Rider hadn't been relevant for over 15 years.

 

lol, says the man who put michael bay 4 times at the helm of transformers. yes critics point out the negative stuff so maybe they can see a better one next time. but michael bay just makes the same shit over and over again... matured? really? a director with a bad sense of comedy, racist jokes and explosions and no plot what so ever! yeah, i'm totally seeing the maturity in his work. at least bad boys had some credibility to it.

and critics actually do understand these movies, no one is expecting martin Scorsese, but we don't want to be fed the same shit 4 times in a row. transformers has failed to evolve as a movie. it's just a massive CG eye candy which in the middle it becomes eye souring because you can't understand what is what. maybe they should look up to Pacific rim and learn a thing or two. i'm happy i didn't waste my money on this movie, i'll wait till it's online.