Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:51 pm
by Vince
Even telling the characters apart is almost asking for too much story in these. The good news is that once the dust clears and you know what colors each good guy is, then you get to tell who didn't make it. Sometimes they mention who didn't make it, but they usually don't make a big fuss out of it.
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:52 pm
by GORDON
Megan Fox's ass in tight jeans was in one of the movies, but I can't think of anything else her character did in them.
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:08 pm
by Vince
Other than majorly pissing off Spielberg with a Nazi comment, not a lot.
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:09 pm
by GORDON
Heh, yeah, I remember that brilliant career move.
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:45 pm
by Malcolm
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:35 pm
by GORDON
I saw this movie last weekend, and I have been trying to put into words the feelings I had toward the movie.
The words are this: How can a movie about giant robots, space ships, explosions, and smashing cities be so god damned boring?
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:15 pm
by Malcolm
I saw the poster on the way out after Riddick and thought, "Goddamn, a massive robot swinging a sword riding an even more giant cyborg tyrannosaurus rex. I can't believe they're going to turn it a net negative."
Edited By Malcolm on 1413238539
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:21 pm
by Malcolm
Further sequels put on hold.
... except for 2007’s Transformers, which was actually met with average reviews. For a Michael Bay film, that is a huge accomplishment.
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:24 pm
by GORDON
Thank god.
Maybe they will reboot them as good movies.
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:34 pm
by TPRJones
Bad news. At least while Transformers continued the damage done by Micheal Bay was contained. Now what other thing that used to be good is he going to go shit on?
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:39 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:Bad news. At least while Transformers continued the damage done by Micheal Bay was contained. Now what other thing that used to be good is he going to go shit on?
Some flick about the Benghazi attack, 13 Hours.
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:08 pm
by TPRJones
That's temporary at best.
I predict the next franchise he'll destroy is a serious reboot of the Power Rangers. Coming to a theater near you in 2017.
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:53 pm
by Malcolm
I believe that's indestructible, even by Bay standards. It'd be like making something more campy than the Adam West Batman. You can't make the Power Rangers more vapid or one-dimensional.
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:48 pm
by Malcolm
Malcolm wrote:I believe that's indestructible, even by Bay standards. It'd be like making something more campy than the Adam West Batman. You can't make the Power Rangers more vapid or one-dimensional.
Someone is apparently trying, though.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:34 am
by Leisher
I saw this movie last weekend, and I have been trying to put into words the feelings I had toward the movie.
The words are this: How can a movie about giant robots, space ships, explosions, and smashing cities be so god damned boring?
This.
The plot was terrible too. It just didn't make any sense at all. I could blow about 1,000 holes in the "creators" plot, the "knights", the surviving Autobots (if they were given Amnesty why was Ratchet hiding and hunted?), the technology invented in the film based on Transformers' technology that they didn't have (WTF?), how do you portray the villain as so intelligent and always a step ahead then have him sit around like a moron not knowing there's a firefight on his side, and when he did figure it out he did nothing about it!, etc.
I also want to know what Michael Bay has against Chicago.
One word: Transformium. (I pray this was a subtle shot at "Unobtainium".)
And how badly did they waste the Dinobots?
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:04 pm
by Vince
Heh... I guess I was too old to get too invested in the Transformers when they came out, but these plots being weak has never bothered me. I remember killing time watching the cartoons as a teenager (? maybe?) and it always seemed to be about selling toys and just being cool robots to vehicles and vehicles to robots. Finding fault in the logic of the cartoons would have been like finding fault in the logic of the Cool-aid man running through walls (I mean, glass pitcher busting bricks? Come on!). I think that just carried over from the cartoons to the movies in my head. I can watch them mindlessly as special effects action porn. I don't expect anything from them, so I've never been disappointed.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:28 pm
by Malcolm
The cartoons were aimed at children, for Christ's sake. There's an infamous scene in the '86 movie that kills off most of the old-school Autobots because they needed to push new merch. These flicks are geared towards a slightly older demographic.
Edited By Malcolm on 1418059708
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:31 pm
by Vince
Well, obviously. I guess I approached the Transformer movies the same way I approached the Scooby Doo live action movie. My expectations weren't all that much higher than the cartoon version. Thus, I haven't been too torn up by them being kind of slim on story or plot.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:48 pm
by Malcolm
The latest Scooby movies are still for the kids. The latest Transformer flicks are trying to draw in the summer action flick crowds. It's targeted to the same people Guardians of the Galaxy was.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:46 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:The latest Scooby movies are still for the kids. The latest Transformer flicks are trying to draw in the summer action flick crowds. It's targeted to the same people Guardians of the Galaxy was.
And, the last Transformers movie was boring. I have watched Guardians about 5 times in the last couple weeks. Somehow there is a difference.
This movie has been the last nail in the "explosions can not carry a movie" coffin, as far as I am concerned, and I am a man who loves him some explosions.