Ok i know alot will disagree but after watching the trailer for the 5th time... Bay did a great job
we see nemesis prime, a more buff megatron is it 2017 yet

 

It doesn't matter how good the movie turns out. People will have to hate it because it's a Michael Bay movie.

 

Not me....congrats mr bay

 

The fact that it will probably earn more then 1B dollars means its not a bad movie. People jsut get pissed off other action directors don't get to make a TF movie. But i love him, i love explosions, robots fighting and stuff. People may hate him, but he doesn't really care if people can't tell.

 

I mean, the movie's not out yet so let's not jump to conclusions.

Every TF movie has a great trailer that fills us with promise.

Financial success does not mean something is good.

Good is of course subjective, but there are measurable aspects of film that reflect quality, and the TF movies historically lack many of these aspects. People will go in droves to something that's borderline objectively bad if it means it satisfies base urges and stimulates them in some way. In fact, many people are against more intellectually gratifying movies. Not necessarily because people are stupid, but because movies are often escapist entertainment. They're a break from effort, mental or physical. Especially theatre experiences, where there can be distractions.

 

So good is subjective but there are objective standards for judging bad? That doesn't make sense.

 

The movie is not out so I can't conclude that Bay did a good job. Looks extremely promising though.

 

It does, though, when you actually consider it. I never said there are objective standards, I said there were measurable standards. Big difference. Technically nothing is objective, it's all personal interpretation. But so many people agree one what works and what doesn't in film. Things like pacing, acting, writing, plotting, cinematography, these can be judged against standards set by previous examples in cinematic history. Whether or not you believe a movie failing to meet those standards makes it bad is up to you, but the TF movies certainly don't reach many of these standards. That's why I said they are borderline objectively bad, because the vast majority of people, critics and fans alike, don't believe the TF movies are especially well made.

And none of that reflects box office gains, which was my point.

 

Well it's that and the bandwagon hate. You just kind of have to dig through to see which people have legit criticisms and who's hating for the sake of hating. I think if you took away the bandwagon aspect, Michael Bay's TF films would be more on the meh side, not great but not terrible either. It's kind of why I like these forums since I finally was able to find legit criticisms from members like you and many others than compared to say the Youtube comments where if I dare say one positive things about the film, people immediately assumed I was insane.

 

Measurements are objective though. There is no universal standard by which to judge a movie on, and saying that there is one is ridiculous. You may as well try and argue that blue is a borderline objectively bad color. You can't even prove the majority of people hate the Transformers movies much less the majority of people think they aren't well made. Box office results do matter though, because if the majority of people didn't like them they wouldn't spend billions of dollars on them.

 

Entertaining and well-crafted are two extremely different things.

 

I think the trailer was promising, but I need to see the movie first to have an opinion.

I don't believe that critics or TF fans are the majority of people... I'm sorry. Probably not even the majority of all people who were watching the movies.

 

Looks good but hey I loved aoe so I'm easy to please when it comes to transformers......don't worry ppl are going to bitch from one universe to the next but come June 2017 they will be the first ppl in the theater

 

There is a personal level to judging something and a level you can judge something without your personal tastes in the way.

So I can say I love watching Plan 9 From Outer Space while at the same time acknowledging that it's horribly written, wrenched acting, better special effects and sets from a high school play, that the replacement actor looks nothing like Bela Lugosi, and laundry list of why it's a horrible film. Because I enjoy a film that doesn't mean that the problems aren't there.

 

And someone could say that they think Plan 9 was brilliantly written and had fine acting and their opinion would be just as valid.

 

*sigh*

I mean, it isn't, but whatever.

See, you're talking my words too literally. When I say critics I don't mean article-writing, professional movie goers, and when I say fans I don't mean online message board toy collectors. I mean people who like the movies, and people who don't like them. I'm refering to everyone who's seen the movies and walked away with an opinion one way or the other.

People get too caught up in the modern appropriation of these terms in our small little conversational chamber. The idea that a "critic" can't just be anyone who applies critical thought to something, or a fan someone who's obsessed with Transformers. It makes conversation difficult when we can't even judge the context around these terms to understand what's being said.

Depends on what "validity" is described as.

 

Yes it does. You can like a movie and thus judge it to be good although it would be objectively bad. This makes a lot of sense. I like a lot of Schwarzenegger, Van Damme and Stallone movies and prefer action movies to be like this. Plot is basically the same and only a vehicle for the action, hero is just over the top masculine and dialogues are cheesy one liners. Objectively bad movies, but subjectively they are great to me. People approach various movies with different kinds of expectations and those are not necessarily the same standards that you'd use to objectively rate a movie. You can see this regularily when critics judge a movie and their reactions often differ much from the target audience. And sometimes they agree.

 

No, it wouldn't. They can like the movie, but a statement like this is just false. Opinions can be false. Just because people can have different opinions doesn't automatically mean that all opinions are right. People are allowed to have false opinions, that is the only truth.

 

Accurate numbers then, in terms of declaring majority. Please. Got to have numbers to use terms like "most of", "majority", etc. :X

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you, hence why I brought up there are valid criticisms. I was just bringing up the other factor contributing to low ratings. Because it does exist, Bay has a negative image, he's basically the person people like to bash.

Does this mean people who dislike Bay are wrong? No because there are reasons behind it. Heck I'm not even that big of a fan either. Because of this negative image, people go into the film with the mindset that no matter what he does, it will be bad.

It's kind of like the same thing with George Lucas, when he released the prequels, people were angry and disappointed. People had valid reasons to be angry which created a negative image that made people jump onto the hate bandwagon and declare that George Lucas is terrible.

There's even many other examples of people that go through this, Miyamoto, Tim Burton, etc.

So that's kind of what's happening to Bay. Hence why I said that if you took out the hate bandwagon aspect, we would probably see more in the middle scores. But I will repeat this, that doesn't mean there aren't valid criticisms from people that dislike the movies. Even I have my share of criticisms. You just have to basically sort through the negative responses and determine which is which.