ok, about the twins past on cybertron, OP said in the first movie that they scan the internet for languages. not to say they didnt experince that stuff, but i kinda doubt it.  other than that, you have really good points and if your not a writter i think you should be.  

 

I was gonna say something on this thread, but this guy beat me to it.

 

So do you agree with Rolling Stone Magazine, that RotF deserved 0/100 stars and the title "Worst action movie ever made," and do you agree with Roger Ebert that anyone who enjoyed any part of RotF is underevolved and a waste of oxygen?

I'm not saying RotF wasn't a bad movie, I'm saying critics blew it out of proportion and ripped it to shreds over any minor detail they could sink their claws into. RotF was not as soul-crushingly bad as it's made out to be; sure, its not all that good, but it didn't deserve the vicious unanimous panning it got. The overzealously negative critical response to RotF has been the key factor in making Transformers synonymous with "bad movies." Average moviegoers seem to have enjoyed it overall, so I can believe that it's general opinion driving that image.

 

Bay haters are going to be Bay haters....

But who can really blame us LOL!

 

Who have the worst armor ever. Refering to Mixmaster. Weak waist.

 

Completely agreed.

ROTF was a completely enjoyable movie. It didn't have the greatest story, but there were good moments, of both character and action variety. I still like ROTF, because even though it isn't as good as the first one, it's still great to watch.

Don't get me started on the critical response to that movie, because it was honestly one of the most over-blown, ridiculous public bashings I've ever seen. I've been a little iffy on Ebert's critiquing before ROTF, but his reviews of it cause me to loose any respect I had for him. I think that even if ROTF had been as good as the original, or better, critics still would've vilified the movie.

 

Ooh, clever, dude. That leaves you a lot of ground. Is the Transformers film franchise generally considered to fall somewhere within the bounds of "mediocre" and "reviled?" Yeah, probably, but that's because it's about cockfighting toy giant robots, not because of whatever brilliant complaint you've come up with.

Your comment, despite covering so much ground, is actively misleading. RotF was improbably successful. Check out any bit of industry journalism at the time. There were even articles written to the tune of "maybe critics are obsolete, because nothing they can say is slowing this financial juggernaut."

Now, speaking from a critical perspective myself, there were very serious, structural, conceptual problems with RotF. As a movie, it was a poor movie, and there are historical reasons for that that have been greatly elaborated on. However, it could not reasonably have been more successful for Hasbro, Paramount, and Michael Bay. That's something to keep in mind.

I'm not sure why half of the Internet thinks that either they or their favored director can just crap out a masterpiece based on a toy franchise. Transformers had no fucking business at all being as good as it was, which had a large part in bringing me to this fandom. RotF had a lot wrong with it, but we know why. I'm cheerfully giving this movie a chance. Looks like even if I hate the Wreckers the movie is bringing enough to the table so that that won't make or break anything.

 

Don't do that. He's one of the few truly unique voices in mainstream US film criticism, one of the last guys left who's not just following the pack...or worse, bought and paid for. He also has the best Twitter feed on the planet.

 

My opinion, exactly.

To me, the greatest flaw of ROTF was that it can give you one hell of a headache with the insane amount of explosions [I had one], but not even a hellish headeche caused by Pinhead can justify the amount of backlash the movie had [it won "worst film of the decade", which is stupid, and wasn't even NOMINATED for the oscar of better special effects].

Critics hate the movie because it's Michael Bay, it doesn't matter what movie we're talking about, Critics will always have problems with it [well, maybe except Nostalgia Critic, but I'm not exactly sure if he is mocking or praising the movie, or both].

And ignore DeceptiJohn, the guy is a troll.

 

The Toy Story franchise is about toys and is generally considered to be quite excellent by fans and critics alike. It merits this consideration imo because of the quality of the storytelling. Your argument is specious and invalid imo. And revenue does not always equal quality. The recent Indian Jones film made mad bank and is generally regarded as a steaming pile. Why does that happen? I really don't know. Why do people buy snuggies(a backwards robe with no belt) or any of the other useless crap people spend millions on? Maybe a sociologist knows, but I sure don't.


And in regards to rating any of the TF movies as 0/100, yeah that is dumb. Anyone who has seen any of the original movies on the syfy channel knows there are worse films in the world.

 

I felt that my intelligence was offended by the twins. The calls of racism I really don't get; I just thought they were fucking stupid.

So it seems we're going for the American hick stereotype this time....yippee.


EDIT: In fairness, that stupid article made my head hurt too. They're as bad as each other.

 

Compare Toy Story [a drama about toys who have life] and Transformers [film about robots beating the crap out of each other] is like saying that Anaconda and Indiana Jones are both similar movies because they have snakes.

And the Recent Indiana Jones film split people, some liked and some not [though it was generally seen as not great as the others].

 

There is a fine line between identification and alienation.
The "mullet" and supposed lack of intelligence does seem a bit much, but I'm going to wait until I see the movie to pass total judgment. It may not look the same portrayed with million dollar CGI as it does on a $14 toy.

People are probably digging too deeply into this however...if you go by the current logic Bay has already been disrespectful to Middle Class America (Moronic Parents), Women (Slutty Mikala(sp?)And Moron Mom again), College kids (you know the ones), Black People (the Twins), and anyone working for the government who isn't in the Armed forces.

But then Bay is pretty elitist...so....maybe he hates us all. But he does it equally lol.

 

That sounds like a superhero team. THE ADVENTURES OF SLUTTY MIKAELA AND MORON MOM!


I don't thing the Wreckers are racist. Why can't robots be different? Thats what I like about Bat's movies. Each robot is different.

 

To be fair, Mikaela is superior to Sam in a hell load of fields, after all, she is not socially, she is smarter than Sam, stronger, and seemed to have more balls [ironically] than him [as she fearlessly whopped Frenzy's ass while Sam ran away as a chicken, for example].

And I can't see how Bay shows the bad side of anyone working for the government except the armed forces, Galloway was a douche, right, but Secretary John Keller used a freaking shotgun to fight against robots, that should count for something.

 

I don't think that ROTF was any worse than anything else that was playing at the time. GI Joe was far worse IMO. I can't figure out why critics hated it. The only thing I can think of is the humor, but a few bad jokes doesn't create the worst movie of the decade. So what was it? Did they not understand it? But what wouldn't they understand? Was it the Twins? But every movie has bad characters. Did they just have something against it? But what?
I can't figure it out. What did ROTF do wrong that other movies did right?

 

Ironic, and likely they'll still watch this film.

 

Having snakes and being ABOUT snakes is two different things. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Here is what the other guy said:

"Is the Transformers film franchise generally considered to fall somewhere within the bounds of "mediocre" and "reviled?" Yeah, probably, but that's because it's about cockfighting toy giant robots"

He said it got panned because it was about toys. I said "well here's another film about toys that is revered."

That's about as similar as you can get. Two films about toys. Are they different? You bet they are. One has a good story and is generally revered, one has a crap story and is generally considered mediocre when it's considered at all.

I like how you keep trying to dismiss my comparisons as invalid. ie I can't compare the changes in the Batman franchise over the years to the TF franchise, I can't compare other movies about toys to the TF franchise. Basically, if I understand you(doubtful), the TF movies are the best in their class because they are in a class by themselves?

 

Mr. Troll, can you please stop trying to personally offend me? This conversation would follow much better without you showing the maturity of a three years old at each post.

Let me re-quote what he said:

You see four words marked, only ONE of them is "toy".

Allow me to be crystal clear:

Toy Story:
- A drama.
- Story involves around the concept of toys being secretly alive, and being able to feel, think and talk.

Transformers:
- An action movie.
- Story envolves around giant robots trying to kill themselves.

Do you see ANY similarity? Nope, and that's because Transformers is an action movie based on the plot of a toyline-made-into-cartoon franchise while Toy Story is about a sentient toyline.

They have nothing in common.

You can't compare a bottle to a keyboard, because they don't have a shit in common, that's the point o not being able of being compared.

Batman has been a serious and dramatic story in the comics for a long time [and Tim Burton's batman was serious, just less serious than TDK, that is a two hour moral lecture about how evil we can be], Transformers hasn't.

I'm not saying that Transformers can't be compared to other franchises, but you're picking the wrong ones to do such.