You clearly haven't seen Godfather Part 2 if you need the Nostalgia Critic to tell you what your opinions should be.

I mean, are you seriously too young to even watch, let alone sit through the first Godfather? Because if you could last through AoE, you damn well can stand the Godfather films.

 

Of course, I don't need anyone's opinion to dictate my thoughts overall. But a good point is a good point.

Going back to your question of that movie, you made sound as if it was the definitive best sequel(presequel) of all time. Can I really watch this movie without having to see the first Godfather?

Also I'm pretty you're way older than me, give me a chance to catch up if I haven't seen a movie.​

I can tell you with a straight face though that the longest movie I ever watched was Apocalypse Now Redux. Which was a very, very long movie to watch through.

202 minutes. (Or maybe an extended version of Return of the King)

So yes, a long movie can be done but maybe interrupted moments of pee breaks and such. It's how I'm trying to get through with a movie like Heat on the first watch.

 

The first two Godfather films are incredible movies. Calling The Godfather II the best sequel of all time is a very understandable position for someone to take, even if you don't agree with them.

Just close your eyes and imagine way too many words and you'll be there.

 

Well, no, but that's because you don't really appreciate what happens in Godfather II without having first seen how Godfather I pretty much ties it all together. Especially since Part 2 is telling one character's story in the present as well as another character's past.
​

I'm in my mid-20s so I'm not that old.

I will admit that, for whatever reason, I've only actually watched the first hour of that - got up to right after they steal the dude's surfboard. Don't remember why I stopped, it wasn't because I didn't find the film uninteresting, but I've just never felt the urge to finish it.

Godfather does have an intermission, and if you only watch one of the Godfather films, then watch the first one. It's a fucking masterpiece.

 

I'm not doubting that. Maybe part of what influences that decision is if I am a fan of the gangster genre overall. Which to be fair, I do have my share on.

To me, that would raise concerns on how I would approach the movie on its own. Having to appreciate Godfather I should be a secondary afterthought.

I look at other movies that are in the series like the Three Colour Trilogy or the Before Trilogy and go, "Hey, I feel like I can watch these movies on their own and not get caught up by what's happening in the other movies." ​

That's still older than me, just only by a little.

I think the 153 minutes was probably better if you want an epic journey of the characters traversing through the dangerous environment.

The Redux basically adds a lot more soldier downtime scenes and more Marlon Brando.

You don't really need to tell me that. It's really common to see the words, "The greatest movie of all time" plastered over them.

 

Both of your tribes worship false Gods because the answer is clearly Aliens  

 

Why would you ever experience part 2 of a story before part 1 if you had the choice? That's like watching Two Towers before Fellowship and having no context as to why all these characters are split up doing different things.

*googles*

I've never even heard of those films.

So? I saw Godfather when I was 14. Godfather II two years after that.

Interesting, thanks.

Then why are you even asking why it's necessary to 'appreciate' Godfather I?

If you're into that kind of thing, sure - personally I find anything to do with the Alien franchise a little too horror-oriented for my liking.

 

I think it became a bigger issue over a reboot or not a reboot because of how Paramount handled things. In the attempt to play it both ways Paramount ended up making this battle over is it a reboot or is it not a reboot because they wouldn't just come out and say yes this a reboot or no this is not a reboot at all. Didn't help that we seemed to getting conflicting reports from different sources with some saying reboot and some saying not reboot. Even the entertainment news seems caught up in this battle because some of the stories that pop up on my phone call it a reboot and some stories call it a prequel.

Likely doesn't help that people have been waiting on a reboot since Bay said that whatever would come after Dark of the Moon would be a reboot. A lot of people got all excited about a real reboot only to see that hope get smashed to bits time after time.

Since it could be the marketing of the next film before we ever get a definitive yes or no about Bumblebee being a reboot this could be something that is fought over for a very long time. And gods forbid if Paramount decides to play coy again on if the next film is a reboot or not.

 

Ah-ha! There's the issue!

You're treating both those trilogies as the same thing, when they're very, very different.

Three Colours is made up of three separate stories, that are only linked by their themes (same as as the Blood & Ice Cream Trilogy). So you can watch each without giving a monkey's about the others, 'cos the narratives are completely unconnected.

Godfather is one story, told across three movies (although it goes all non-linear in its storytelling). So it's one narrative, and if you jump onboard in the second film... well you can do that, but you're only seeing a third of the full story.

That's the part that baffles me; I can't figure out why you'd want to do that, and miss out on two-thirds of the story...  

Psssst, don't tell them, but I agree with you. They've got me tied up in the cellar. Send help.

 

Believe me, I get what you are getting at but I WANT it to be a soft reboot. I don't want this to be a standalone, I want this to jumpstart a movie franchise I can be happy to watch every 2 or 3 years in theater. Once they establish a universe that makes sense and isn't all over the place like Bayformers then bring on the standalone movies.
Star wars and MCU can do that cause it established it's universes but Transformers isn't there yet.

As much as I do like parts of Bayformers (DOTM being my favorite, but it still has its own flaws), it has too many problems now and is beyond repair. I want universe that respect its own source material. Bayformers doesn't respect anything it has done to its universe; its embraced having characters that were either horribly written, a timeline that it all over the place, lore that doesn't work, and so on.

 

It worked fine when I watched the Dark Knight. :/

 

We can enjoy standalone movies. The issue is Hollywood wants Universe projects now in some weak hope they'll be able to recreate what MCU has done.

It'll take a lot of planning before any movies/tv are made to get it right.

There have been so many failed efforts. DC has been very hit and miss. The Dark Universe didn't even get started right. The Kaiju Universe has some promise.

Hollywood loves copying what is hot.

 

Sequels and prequels have been going on for ages.

 

I gotta say there's some confusing arguments on what's coming next.

Don't know why it took me to long to answer. A third of story should still be one narrative on its own.

Also Three Colours is absolutely connected through its theme regarding the history of France.

 

Really like how you think
Rotf and tlk share a lot in common
For me it was a disappointment as the highs of aoe in my opinion sank back to the low star of rotf...the treasure hunt esque plot and prime free second act is its biggest common points
As for the authors post it does matter to people whether bee is prequel or reboot for the simple reasons that for people invested in 1-5 do they embrace this little film as part of what they liked...or dislike it for basically a betrayal of the bayverse?
And before people jump on my post, betrayal seems a apt word considering we all know this began as a prequel

 

MCU is a big influence, but I blame netflix and chill/binge watching, smart phones, the internet, and short attention spans.

I need a vested interest now.

At $20 a movie ticket do you want to see a movie about something you don't have a vested interest in?  

Y'all thirsty for Glass and King Kong teaming up with Godzilla?   

I sure as hell am.  

Now if I could only use my time travel abilities and go back in time and Inception it in Disney's brain that one-shot Star Wars movies is bad idea...   ...Or tell Michael Bay to stop making the same movie over 5 times in a row.  

 

Likewise. I don't think Revenge of the Fallen is any better or worse than The Last Knight as an individual movie. And I really, really like RotF. It just felt jarring as a sequel to AoE and DotM.

What I like about Age of Extinction is that, if you think about it, it really is the Transformers movie fans were wanting after the first three. Robot characters with a little more to them. Galvatron voiced by Welker, who is back to going toe-to-toe with Prime. No more Shia and company. No more military battle scenes hogging the action spotlight. Robot deaths actually impact other robots. Dinobots don't die and aren't the subject of crude humor, unlike, say, Devastator. Designs that are more visually expressive and/or more colorful. The action is also clearer; it was less blurry, and the new designs and color palette of the film really helped.

And did the fans for the most part appreciate those changes? Nope. Instead, they thought it was so much "worse" than the first three films that people used to complain non-stop for their scrap metal designs, lesser robot focus, blurrier action, etc.,...because of Transformium, or Prime killing a human, or the Autobots being more antisocial, or no "normal" Decepticons, or the Dinobots largely appearing only in the final act and not getting a backstory. The last part is ironic, given guys like Shockwave and Devastator get less screen time and no backstory, and they die in their first film, too...yet AoE and the Dinobots is where so many fans draw the line? I don't get it.

But that's also why I like it, because it was the film fans were clamoring in many ways, BUT it took both Bayverse and earlier TF fans out of their comfort zones, and THAT, rather than any real difference in quality between it and the first three, is the reason why it is so derided. That, and I think because The Last Knight didn't really follow up many of its threads, but they still associate the 4th film with the 5th, hence it's guilty by association.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

Seconded
I also wanna add that aoe was the prime movie many people claim they want
In aoe: prime is the robot who is found in the junk ad opposed to bee
Prime undergoes an actual arc which never really happened in the other movies
Prime gets a “man and his truck” relationship with Cade as opppsed to “boy and his car”.
And aoe easily has the most prime screen time...I saw on a YouTube compilation that rotf and tlk had 10 min of prime, dotm like 15 and aoe has 25

 

Yes, AOE got some things right as you stated, but a few diamonds in a trash bin with a plethora of garbage doesn't make the trash bin look any more attractive.

 

The thing is, if Age of Extinction is "a plethora of garbage with a few diamonds in a trash bin," then so is every other Transformers movie and show and comic in existence. Transformers was, is, and probably always will be popcorn entertainment made to sell toys. It will always have its share of stupid and silly things in it. Transformers fiction is light beer at a college frat kegger, not some award-winning microbrew with select organic ingredients mixed and brewed to perfection. Not that there's anything wrong with that; one can certainly argue that's part of the brand's charm.

Yeah, Age of Extinction has some over-the-top stuff and things that aren't real world realistic...but so does every other Transformers movie. Yeah, Shane isn't that well executed of a character, and Li Bingbing's and Sophia Myles' characters don't have much to them...but every piece of Transformers fiction has at least some characters that likewise don't have much to them. Yeah, some scenes could have been edited better...but the same is true for the other movies.

If anything, Age of Extinction actually has a lot more good things than fans suggest. Narratively speaking, it's actually quite a logical continuation of a Post-DotM universe, and the different subplots are actually narratively and thematically connected. And the characters make sense in the context of the universe they exist in, and some of them have actual arcs. I'm not saying any of the characters are the deepest in the history of human fiction by any stretch, BUT neither is any other character in any other Transformers fiction. Plus, the characters, both good and bad, also fit the themes of the movie. By Transformers standards, it's actually very solid I think. It's just less comfortable and familiar than most of the fiction fans like.

So yeah, I don't think any of the Transformers films are "a plethora of garbage with only a few diamonds in a trash bin" so much as "many redeeming qualities (some which go right over people's heads), but still have some flaws of note." In fact, I'd say the vast majority of Transformers films succeeded in what they were trying to do, Age of Extinction included.