We are quite happy to accept a poorly received and rated movie, and we can (nearly) all ignore the plotholes, potty humour and dodgy script, and accept it for what it is. Popcorn munching fun! But is it possible to make a movie, fans and critics can love. How would it need to be different? Who could make it?

They done it for Batman with Dark Knight, even with the popularity of Tim Burtons Movie, I`m sure noone could have imagined a movie about a man dressed as bat, could have been handled so realistically, and accepted so widely!

 

it depends on whoever is heading it.

 

Most of the criticism is levelled at the plot, script and story elements. The inability to tell most of the bots apart is also a stocking point. Thats all they really need to fix.

 

I really don't think so. Let's use the Dark Knight. Yes it had a good story and yadda yadda, but that movie had one of the greatest actors of all time pushing it along: Heath Ledger. Can Transformers do that?

 

Of course it's possible. Sci-fi/super hero/comic book films that go over well with critics (Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings) do occur. Under Michael Bay, though, I wouldn't bet on it (and I like both films and find some of his others at least entertaining/rewatchable).

 

Absolutely 100% yes it is possible. Same as any other franchise or property. A good film is a good film regardless of the subject.

 

It doesn't even have to be all that plotty - look at Star Trek.

But of course, the fact that robots are in the leading roles means TF has a mountain to climb. But it can be a good story - like King Kong. We need more emotions in the movie, not just explosions and robots. TF1 had that emotional connection and initial movie magic. ROTF lost the second (naturally) and ignored the first.

 

No, probably not

 

Yes. But probably only if it was fully CG and had all the care of a Pixar film. Beast Wars got a lot of praise, as a children's TV series. That same formula applied to a CG Transformers film that is well written and had a soul would bring good reviews. And if it was rated G or PG, it would make a lot of money, just like the Bay films.

 

Yes and no I would say due to a wide range of people's expectations and their opinions about what would constitute as a good or great Transformers movie to their selves. I would pretty much rather have the Transformers movies the way they have been done.

 

It could win less critical bile and vitriol, but then there wouldn't be room to cram in as much awesome. Broad critical acclaim is very unlikely though. Remember, Batman has had much more time to convince the mainstream public that it can be taken seriously as art and literature. Transformers is not anywhere near that point yet, and I'm not so sure that having critics bash the film less would be worth it.

 

I don't think great CGI characters are hard to swallow these days, so long as they have a great actor behind them. Gollum from LotR springs to mind, Andy Serkis' performance was absolutely outstanding, utilising all of the lonliness, hate and torment of the character.

In both of these films, Prime/Cullen has been the absolute highlight for me and he brings the only sense of gravitas (sp?) which keeps the story at least semi-grounded and people engaged in more than a BANG! BOOM! ASS! level.

I think that with better writers and a director who has his mind on the character/story, we could seriously expect a Transformers movie that can win as an action/adventure and please (most of) the critics.

 

Sure, why not?

 

Absolutely. We recently had a movie about pro wrestling get so much critical acclaim it could have won an Oscar. There's no reason to think that Transformers cannot achieve something similar.

I'm of two minds about this.

I see your point about the general populace's already established impression of what Transformers are (children's robot toys that turn to vehicles) can hinder whatever ambitions there would be for the live-action movie to be a critical hit. That's likely the burden of translating an already established property into a movie. Toy Story didn't have that problem for instance; it hit a homerun with its first film, and it's been deemed culturally significant enough to be preserved in the Library of Congress.

On the other hand, does it have to be that we need several attempts to adapt a property into movie form before someone "gets it right"?

 

superman returns was too bent on making critics happy and it suffer $$$ massively that a sequel was not even announce...LOL

 

superman returns was a bad movie though, not as bad as rotf, however it was twice as boring.

 

Allright then, lets get Heath Ledger, come on down, lets.....oh.  

...plus, a great actor does not make a great film. 'Jaws: The Revenge' was not saved by Michael Caine, Sean Connery didn't help 'The Avengers' and Ben Kingsley sure as hell couldn't turn 'Bloodrayne' around!  

 

It can be done, a good movie is a good movie regardless of subject matter. Also, you can have even more awesome than the 4 or 5 minutes of rotf and still have a great movie. rotf lost the charm, magic and pacing of the first one.

 

Not with Bay directing or Orci/Kurtzman writing.

 

This.


Pixar made a critically acclaimed movie about a box on wheels and talking cars.