The Transformers 3 Thread--A Michael Bay Thread

[GU-11]

Let me preface this by saying that I don't disagree. Bay's treatment of Transformers has been, from the get go, awful in my book. Toilet humor, jump cuts, annoying humans, robots that look like a drawer of cutlery fell into a blender, zero personality for characters not named "Sam" or "Optimus Prime", and the names of beloved characters slapped on robots that bore little to no resemblance of previous versions of said characters.

...But even dumb movies have their moments, and if you want to watch giant robots smack the tar out of each other, options are limited.

Sad, but true. Micheal Bay is what he is--a maker of loud, superficial movies that are watchable only for their explosions and special effects. If anyone has to take the blame for what the Transformers movies became, I'd have to point the finger at Spielberg for getting Bay to do it. That said, I've heard various rumors that other directors turned down the project and Bay was the only one who agreed, but since these rumors came from rabid Bayverse fans in a TF fansite, I'd take that with a salt shaker in hand.

And yeah, I also hate it when he randomly slaps a name on TF's who look and act nothing their namesakes. The only time when he actually stayed true to the original characters was in the first movie. While they look very different from their G1 origins, at least Jazz was still a jive-talking hipster, Ironhide was a grizzled veteran weapons specialist, and Ratchet remains in his role as a medic.

That's not so humble as he was the writer for ALL the Blade movies and for years before those. Goyer is very hit or miss, the only reason the Batman films are as good as they are is because he is collaborating in the writing with Jonathan and Chirs Nolan. For instance he brought us the amazing Dark city, but also gave us Nick Fury: Agent of Shield.

Wow. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Hong Kong cinema, but this guy sounds just like Tsui Hark, the emperor of hit-and-miss.

[RD Blade]

other directors turned down the project and Bay was the only one who agreed, but since these rumors came from rabid Bayverse fans in a TF fansite, I'd take that with a salt shaker in hand.

It came straight from the horse's mouth. Bay explained the whole thing in detail on the 2007 commentary track. Of course, whether you take his word for it is a whole different story. Edited October 25, 2011 by RD Blade

[jenius]

Let me preface this by saying that I don't disagree. Bay's treatment of Transformers has been, from the get go, awful in my book. Toilet humor, jump cuts, annoying humans, robots that look like a drawer of cutlery fell into a blender, zero personality for characters not named "Sam" or "Optimus Prime", and the names of beloved characters slapped on robots that bore little to no resemblance of previous versions of said characters.

But I do get where people like Kanedas Bike are coming from. It's not so much that we know Bay's going to hand us a turd so we should smile and thank him for crap. No one's going to make the mistake of thinking that Transformers was going to be as on the same level as The Dark Knight or anything like that. But even dumb movies have their moments, and if you want to watch giant robots smack the tar out of each other, options are limited.

Fair enough, I'm probably a little sleep deprived and cranky. If this film scratched some itch that Michael Bay's films have given to some viewers and those people have turned these films into a guilty pleasure of sorts, that's fine. I just don't get the next step where I shouldn't think the film is terrible because some people have developed a taste for this brand of misery. I don't think I should have to compare this film to other bad films to get a different barometer because my expectation should have been that this film would be bad. Regardless of my expectation, this film was bad. I'm not saying that because I'm an old school transformers fan (i'm a light fan at best), I'm saying it because the writing and the editing were really bad.

[GU-11]

It came straight from the horse's mouth. Bay explained the whole thing in detail on the 2007 commentary track. Of course, whether you take his word for it is a whole different story.

Can't say I'd be surprised if other directors turned it down. Remakes are always hard, because you have to homage the original and still bring it up to date. A difficult task for any director. And the expectations get even worse since its the Transformers franchise.

I consider myself a moderate TF fan, but certain ones from the Geewunner "regime" are almost never pleased with anything that gets produced, and can turn belligerent sometimes. Even before filming started, some fans organized protests in his formers office, and even broke into his home.

Of course, the fact that Bay was quoted calling Transformers "that silly toy movie from the 80's" didn't help matters. Don't know if it was before or after the protests and break-in, though.

[Kanedas Bike]

Fair enough, I'm probably a little sleep deprived and cranky. If this film scratched some itch that Michael Bay's films have given to some viewers and those people have turned these films into a guilty pleasure of sorts, that's fine. I just don't get the next step where I shouldn't think the film is terrible because some people have developed a taste for this brand of misery. I don't think I should have to compare this film to other bad films to get a different barometer because my expectation should have been that this film would be bad. Regardless of my expectation, this film was bad. I'm not saying that because I'm an old school transformers fan (i'm a light fan at best), I'm saying it because the writing and the editing were really bad.

Man, you're still missing my point.

All I'm saying, or asking, is what did you expect out of Transformers 3? You think it's has major flaws, and so do I along with most people. I'm only saying, or again asking, is why are you shocked by this?

And in my head when I broached the subject of expectations I thought I was offering up a way you could have lessened your disappointment by stating that had you expected the same type of movie that Bay has always put out, from Armageddon, the two Bad Boy movies, The Rock, Transformers, Transformers: ROTF, etc., etc., then what you saw the other day would not have put you out as much as it did.

Now what I enjoy in a movie does not have to equal what you or anyone else does as I like some really good (universally excepted) and some really bad (universally panned) movies - but I do my best to set my expectations accordingly. Am I still really disappointed and pleasantly surprised? Absou-frickin-lutely - but more often than not I get what I paid for.

Take all of that for it for what it's worth but really I wish you'd stop implying that I'm trying to defend this movie from you, or slam you for not liking it as much as me or anyone else may have, 'cause that's not what I've been doing.

-b.

[jenius]

All I'm saying, or asking, is what did you expect out of Transformers 3? You think it's has major flaws, and so do I along with most people. I'm only saying, or again asking, is why are you shocked by this?

I'm not 'shocked' by it. You've taken my one comment about how I would have hoped this would be a better film and created an argument around it as if my hope it would be better meant necessarily that this film was going to HAVE to suck in my mind. The original post is a critique of the film supported by specific references to poorly handled parts. The fact that this film was very likely going to be poorly written and executed is not a remedy for the fact it's poorly written and executed.

Now what I enjoy in a movie does not have to equal what you or anyone else does as I like some really good (universally excepted) and some really bad (universally panned) movies - but I do my best to set my expectations accordingly.

What does YOUR expectations have to do with anything? You're whole argument seems that you create a different barometer for movie criticisms based on your pre-conceived notions for how good a film is supposed to be. That really doesn't mean anything as far as my criticisms of this film go. I watched a film, it sucked, I made the observation and gave reasons why it sucked. I'm not saying it sucked because it did or didn't live up to expectations. I'm saying it sucked because it was poorly written and executed. You seem to be repeatedly arguing that it didn't suck because everyone should have expected it to be poorly written and executed and it lived up to that. I suspect what you really mean to say is that the film was actually enjoyable because it delivered scantily clad women and big explosions which are the only things the audience had a right to expect based on previous franchise history but that's the reason why the movie was successful at the box office, it's not a reflection on whether or not it's truly a quality film. I acknowledge the film did have both big explosions and scantily clad women, the two prerequisites established by the franchise, but that doesn't mean I should think it's good. I'm certain this film could have had big explosions and scantily clad women and still been a whole lot better with competent writers and editors on board.

I'm guessing this is the conversation that really should have happened between me, you, or any other TF3 supporter:

Me: This movie sucks, it's poorly written, way too long, and has a littany of other problems

A TF3 supporter: Sure, this movie has problems, but it was enjoyable in that it lived up to the low expectations of its audience and had enough explosions to cover up most of its weaknesses. If all you had hoped for was some silly explosions and hot chicks then you wouldn't be so let down by how awful this film really is.

Me: Even if that's all I had hoped for, I wouldn't be oblivious to this movie's many faults and would still call it a terrible film. If I somehow liked it I would call it a guilty pleasure because I would know it was terrible but for some reason it tickled me.

Edited October 25, 2011 by jenius

[Kanedas Bike]

My expectations are just that - mine, they shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you like something.

Do I feel the same way about DOTM as you? Nope and I gave the reasons why - it was as I expected it to be, based on previous work.

You don't like the film, that's fine by me, it always was. I was just trying to illustrate, for me, how well metered expectations can help to take the sting out of the potential disappointment of whatever, in this case watching TF: DOTM.

And regarding the films enjoyability, no, that's not what I meant to say. I said exactly what I wanted to so don't put words in my mouth. I could try and extrapolate that you meant to say you were just simply butt-hurt after watching it but then that would be cheapening the points you've tried to illustrate.

That said you're entirely too wound-up about this whole thing, I'm going to do what you suggested, and I agreed to last page (and stick with it this time). Agree to disagree.

-b.

[jenius]

As to not end this on an uncivil note, I think our words were just barely missing each other. Here's one last effort:

I was just trying to illustrate, for me, how well metered expectations can help to take the sting out of the potential disappointment of whatever, in this case watching TF: DOTM.

You're right, expecting a movie to be bad makes it less painful when it is bad, or more pleasant when it's not as bad as you expected. Had I enjoyed this film after having expected it to be the worst film ever (because it's better than the worst film ever), I still would have concluded that it was a really bad film. After all, we all have guilty pleasure movies for some reason we like... sometimes just because they are so bad... but we still know they're bad and recognize them as such. Alright, if I still haven't figured out what this discussion was about, I apologize but I'm hoping it's all sorted out.

[Duke Togo]

Just watched this yesterday, and was entertained by it as much as I was the first. It's not great by any means, but I enjoyed it. Outside of direction and script complaints, it still suffers from the same problems the first two do: too much time spent on humans and not enough on Transformers, and sometimes it's really hard to tell the robots apart.

[RD Blade]

That's because almost every Decepticon (and several Autobots)is grayish silver. "In Soviet Cybertron, everyone is individual...the same individual."

[Arthurius]

Nice Montage!!!

EAT YOUR AWSOME!!!!

[areaseven]

Takara Tomy is really milking the hell out of the ROTF Optimus Prime mold.

Dark of the Moon Striker Optimus Prime In-Hand Images

[GU-11]

Takara Tomy is really milking the hell out of the ROTF Optimus Prime mold.

Dark of the Moon Striker Optimus Prime In-Hand Images

The inconsistent usage of light and dark plastic is a deal breaker. Nice concept with the stealth mode thing, but IMO not worth buying yet ANOTHER leader class Optimus. ROTF LC Optimus, Jetwings, and the DMK model kit are all I need.

Edited November 15, 2011 by GU-11

[pfunk]

Just watched this yesterday, and was entertained by it as much as I was the first. It's not great by any means, but I enjoyed it. Outside of direction and script complaints, it still suffers from the same problems the first two do: too much time spent on humans and not enough on Transformers, and sometimes it's really hard to tell the robots apart.

Plus 2, it seems they are stuck in a garage all the time and not actually "robots in disguise"

[GU-11]

Plus 2, it seems they are stuck in a garage all the time and not actually "robots in disguise"

That's been bugging me for a long time. The humans treat Autobots like garbage, basically, and yet Prime puts up with it all through ROTF and DOTM. For someone who spouts, "freedom is the right of all sentient beings," he sure doesn't get much freedom himself, being forced into alt mode and locked up in a hangar at NEST.

[RD Blade]

That's because they were integrated into the US military as assets. It would have been more effective if they operated on their own, occasionally providing support to the military whenever Decepticons were involved.

Apparently, in part 4 they'll be able to hang out in diners without drawing too much attention.

[GU-11]

That's because they were integrated into the US military as assets. It would have been more effective if they operated on their own, occasionally providing support to the military whenever Decepticons were involved.

Yeah, even soldiers get R&R, and I'd like to think that they'd be considerate enough to allocate some Cybertronian-sized accommodations for the Autobots, so they can hang out between missions.

The scenes in ROTF seem to show that the Autobots are expected to stay in alt mode and parked silently in that hangar until summoned. Notice how Optimus only transforms into his bot mode when he's asked to speak to General Morshower.

[areaseven]

You're not gonna believe this - according to IGN, DOTM is one of 15 films considered for an Oscar nomination for Achievement in Visual Effects.

[CoryHolmes]

Actually, I will believe that. The viz effects in the movies is just mind-boggling. From Scorpinok's attack in the first one, through the mind-boggling forest fight in ROTF, to... well... any scene in DOTM with the 'bots in it, the films have set a much higher watermark for me as far as movie effects go.

I'm still in awe of how the forest battle in ROTF honestly made these CGI effects seem like they had mass, like they really were giant robots duking it out with trees as jousting sticks.