That's just the way it works, though. Most films are in fact shit. Why shouldn't we ask for those basic qualities?
I probably truly like about 10-15 films. I'd prefer that they actually spent time making a good film, instead of having to lower my standards to watch an endless parade of films containing 2 hours of crap and explosions.
Well, I'll think I've given you more than enough of my attention. Have fun yelling against the brick wall that is reality, right in front of your nose. I'll be talking with people with some more maturity.
Nope. Its neither idealstic OR naive.
My argument is that the end product's angle is so far removed in concept from its original form (That it seems to have no problem using the original name from) that it drew criticism for it.
IE: If Blade Runner was remade from the POV of that fast food stall owner guy, (Ford now pops in for a burger and thats all we see of him for the flick)
Citizen Kane focusing on the guy who once polished on of Orson Welles' limos...
Or Apocalypse Now spending its running time on the story of the guy who supplies the paperclips in the office that Sheen was dispatched from rather than the mission to kill Kurtz.
THATS the problem I have with it. Thats way more important than the colour of anyone's bodywork.
And the thesis I believe is not flawed.
Watch the movie.
Then count the amount of time that the TFs are featured in full dialogue mode.
(Counting the time that the TFs in Robot mode are visually featured in full. Not close ups)
Run that against the screen time of the picture.
Then finally noticed the title that the makers of this movie have dared to use instead of "Shia LeBeouf and friend's pubescent teen adventure".
The barefaced cheek of it all will then stand out a little easier.
And thats without getting to the other issues we have had with the movie...
Victor Von Doom was right. Once the FX novelty is gone, the hollow nastiness of it all will remain.
Well I liked the movie, I felt empathy for the characters and liked how the army was effective against the Decepticons .I wasn't a transformers fan until I saw this movie which got me interested in The Transformers universe. You can vent,rant and whine all you want but many people liked it so I guess you weren't right afterall. Good Day.
For the way the plot was shaped, you can look to Steven Spielberg. He wanted the heart of the film to be Spike's bonding with Bumblebee - just like the classic story of a boy bonding with his first car, in everyday life. And for that, he took pointers from what he did in E.T. Elliot & E.T. bonded on a non-verbal level, because they could barely communicate; that's why Bumblebbe was silent for nearly the whole film, until the end. The theme of being "more than meets the eye" is reflected in what Spike and the other humans learn about the Autobots, and vice versa. Some Autobots, like Ironhide, needed to be convinced humans were woth saving, and they learn.
Also, if they took exclusively the point of view of the Transformers, there would be no mystery to the plot. We would know exactly why they are here, and just watch them push around humans to an objective we already know is coming. By doing it this way, with a bunch of random events happeneing in the world - the Qatar attack, the odd behaviour of Spike's new car, Frenzy infiltrating Air Force One, the significance of Sam Great-Great Grandfather and his glasses - climaxing with the reveal of what Sector Seven is keeping frozen underground , it keeps the audience interested in learning what is happeneing, and how it's connected. It's considered good storytelling.
Don't forget - they spend a LOT of money to not just make this for hard-core fans or casual ones, but to introduce it to new people who never followed this series, bought the toys etc. They need a primer & introduction.
And, keep in mind the film begins & ends with narration from Optimus Prime, and his opening speech gives us some clues. I get the idea this is part of the large message he is sending out at the end, to other Autobots across the galaxy, so it's from the point of view of after everything that happened. So, the film can be considered to be from his point of view, ultimately.
Lastly, as to the title of this thread and it's point, if the film had underperformed or flopped financially, and drew some of the worst reviews of the year (like Godzilla in 1998), Schecter could start a thread here and have some real ammunition to gloat over, like how Michael Bay was the wrong hire and I told you it would all turn out bad yada yada...but those two things didn't happened. So, all you got is a guy ranting about this & that. The film is a smash hit, and they are making more, so he isn't "right" in any way.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
we are well aware of spielberg's intentions behind his decisions. the argument is that they made the wrong decisions and essentially just made a mindless bubblegum pop film based on the transformers.
not that box office sales have anything to do with the greatness/shittiness of a film, but:
godzilla:
Total US Gross $136,314,294
International Gross $239,685,706
Worldwide Gross $376,000,000
transformers:
Total US Gross $310,180,000
International Gross $367,500,000
Worldwide Gross $677,680,000
oh but thats half as much so that means its crap, right?
the godfather:
Total US Gross $134,966,411
International Gross $133,533,589
Worldwide Gross $268,500,000
while we're on the topic: in the same year, shrek the third, generally refered to as crap, grossed more than transformers.
Total US Gross $321,012,359
International Gross $418,400,000
Worldwide Gross $739,412,359
shrek 2, even worse, is the third top grossing film of all time:
Total US Gross $436,721,703
International Gross $478,556,883
Worldwide Gross $915,278,586
"why" you might ask? children. families. when a movie is hyped and marketed towards kids through not only a film but tons of merchandising from action figures to party hats, the film will gross heavily by default. simple fact of cinema as it is today.
plenty of box office lemons exist on that list, for the very reason i have stated. so, come to me with a decent argument against mine, instead of trying to teach everyone about why decisions were made and how they made sooooo much mooooney so it just has to be great. naaaa, you said you were done posting in this thread, right?
anyhoo, let me take a moment to point out that a little over a week after this thread's creation (speaking of 'by the numbers') this thread has generated enough interest to make it #7 overall in posts and #26 most viewed. maybe im just a really popular guy? or maybe there is juct a complete lack of, as ive said, public interest in this film and whatever comes of it.
that, IMHO is what judges greatness in cinema. the test of time.
score: D-
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Last edited by Schecter on Sep 4th, 2007 at 02:27 AM
Godzilla did OK by the end, but was expected to do much better; that worldwide gross is close to what they were looking for in North America alone. The people at ColumbiaTristar were putting a positive spin on it, saying they planned to make a sequel, but they instead dropped the whole concept and the film rights went back to ToHo in Japan.
The next film by Roland Emmerich - The Patriot - also underperformed in 2000, and that was about the American Revolution! The company just let him walk after that.
As to your other above numbers - keep in mind when The Godfather was released, it became the biggest blockbuster in history until Jaws took the record three years later, on a budget around $10 million (1970's dollars). Even adjusting for inflation, films like Godzilla & Transformers have budgets three times as large as a Godfather film.
And I'm not here to argue the merits of Shrek the Third; currently, Transformers is only a few million behind it in North America.
And Shrek 2 - which you consider even worse - actually has an 88% critical approval rating at Rotten tomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shrek_2/
Just because you say it's crap doesn't mean it's so - it's just your opinion.
Me, personally, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. I worried a great deal about Michael Bay doing this film, and he actually suprised me with a terrifically entertaining effort.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
Last edited by roughrider on Sep 4th, 2007 at 03:37 PM
why would you have been worried since he delivered exactly what everyone expected he would?
as far as rotten tomatoes, bad source of evidence to support your argument considering transformers was given a rotten rating.
anyway, you said that godzilla "underperformed or flopped financially".
of course it underperformed, but given enough hype any piece of garbage can be a blockbuster, as godzilla has proven.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Last edited by Schecter on Sep 4th, 2007 at 05:32 PM
Of course not. If it was completely about money, Martin Scorsese would be considered a failure, rather than one of the most acclaimed American filmmakers of the last 30 years.
But in this particular case, expectations are telling: The Departed suprised by turning out to be Scorsese's biggest ever box office hit, and brought him his long-awaited first Oscar. The perfect example of a film loved by audiences & critics, and given its due with awards.
Godzilla was specifically targeting the same audience that ate up Jurassic Park, but did barely half the business of the latter and was critically savaged.
The Rotten Tomatoes example justs shows how one can consider two films absolute crap ( Shrek 2 & 3), yet one gets stellar reviews while the latter gets mediocre notices. So, it's not about absloute truth about what the film is - it's just your view of it, is all.
As for the reviews for Transformers, all I said is it's gotten better notices than other Michael Bay films of the past - he won't be up for Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Film this year, as he was with Armageddon & Pearl Harbour; my prediction.
Perception is something among fans. For several years now, the media & Star Wars fans have been grumbling & nitpicking over the prequels. Just check out the forums here! So many have complained, it's hard to believe three films could gross a combined $2.5 billion and no one likes them(?) Then you look at reviews for them on Rotten Tomatoes, and amazingly they are all certified fresh - even The Phantom Menace! Even more amazing, was an article circulated there that shows the prequels may have been better reviewed overall, than the originals were when first released! (Time & percepetion; very funny things...)
So, who's complaining other than a vocal minority, who somehow feel entitled to tell George Lucas what to do with his own story?
There seems to be a similar minority, here.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
KMC Community Forums
Aug 27th, 2007 03:08 PM
Attachment: 
, it keeps the audience interested in learning what is happeneing, and how it's connected. It's considered good storytelling. 
