Dr McBeefington
That score was phenomenal. I enjoyed the plot of part 2 which was REALLY ruined by the dialogue and the token black robots. I hope Michael Bay didn't use the same writer.
Worst of all was the idea that the presence of the Transformers on Earth had been covered up to the point that it was relegated to the status of a quiet urban legend. They tore up an interstate and ripped "Mission City" to shreds, getting the Air Force involved in downtown bombing runs in the meanwhile and killing hundreds and hundreds of people, Optimus Prime makes a goddamn speech honoring Jazz and thanking the human[s] for their loyalty and whatnot, and somehow this all gets thrown under the rug by the beginning of Revenge of the Fallen.
This is of course why the continuity shall be untenable. Unless every human in the whole world over the age of five knows who Samuel James Witwicky is from the onset of Dark of the Moon, we will have yet another gaping plot hole.
I also refuse to believe that Sam and Mikaela spent two years together, survived the events of the first two movies, and then break up[/she dies?] and he moves onto Rosie Huntington-Whitely. No. Megan Fox >>> any other potential Transformers love interest, always. This movie will be depressing for me regardless of ancillary issues like the fate of the planet and the resolution of the Cybertronian conflicts as they pertain to it, solely because Megan Fox is not in it.
But that's okay, I am willing to allow myself that pain if those ancillary issues are seen too and Optimus Prime/Bumblebee/Sentinel Prime [!] get to kick enough ass.
Originally posted by Eminence
One or two positive notes aside, the plot was what brought the movie to ruin. It made no goddamn sense. The Fallen's been sitting on his ass with Megatron on-ice for several thousand years? Only a Prime can kill him? The original Primes melted themselves to the hide the Matrix of Leadership a few dozen miles from the sun-exploding machine (as opposed to just blowing the doomsday weapon up)?Worst of all was the idea that the presence of the Transformers on Earth had been covered up to the point that it was relegated to the status of a quiet urban legend. They tore up an interstate and ripped "Mission City" to shreds, getting the Air Force involved in downtown bombing runs in the meanwhile and killing hundreds and hundreds of people, Optimus Prime makes a goddamn speech honoring Jazz and thanking the human[s] for their loyalty and whatnot, and somehow this all gets thrown under the rug by the beginning of Revenge of the Fallen.
This is of course why the continuity shall be untenable. Unless every human in the whole world over the age of five knows who Samuel James Witwicky is from the onset of Dark of the Moon, we will have yet another gaping plot hole.
I also refuse to believe that Sam and Mikaela spent two years together, survived the events of the first two movies, and then break up[/she dies?] and he moves onto Rosie Huntington-Whitely. No. Megan Fox >>> any other potential Transformers love interest, always. This movie will be depressing for me regardless of ancillary issues like the fate of the planet and the resolution of the Cybertronian conflicts as they pertain to it, solely because Megan Fox is not in it.
But that's okay, I am willing to allow myself that pain if those ancillary issues are seen too and Optimus Prime/Bumblebee/Sentinel Prime [!] get to kick enough ass.
I saw to your Mom last night.
Originally posted by Lucius
The music was incredible. The movie was shit.Both of them.
Armageddon objectively made Saving Private Ryan, Requiem for a Dream, and The Dark Knight look like amateur films. L2goodtaste.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Armageddon objectively made Saving Private Ryan, Requiem for a Dream, and The Dark Knight look like amateur films. L2goodtaste.
Wasn't talking about Armageddon, although that movie is also some of worst shit ever to make the big screen. In fact, that might have been one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Originally posted by Eminence
One or two positive notes aside, the plot was what brought the movie to ruin. It made no goddamn sense. The Fallen's been sitting on his ass with Megatron on-ice for several thousand years? Only a Prime can kill him? The original Primes melted themselves to the hide the Matrix of Leadership a few dozen miles from the sun-exploding machine (as opposed to just blowing the doomsday weapon up)?
Worst of all was the idea that the presence of the Transformers on Earth had been covered up to the point that it was relegated to the status of a quiet urban legend. They tore up an interstate and ripped "Mission City" to shreds, getting the Air Force involved in downtown bombing runs in the meanwhile and killing hundreds and hundreds of people, Optimus Prime makes a goddamn speech honoring Jazz and thanking the human[s] for their loyalty and whatnot, and somehow this all gets thrown under the rug by the beginning of Revenge of the Fallen.
This is of course why the continuity shall be untenable. Unless every human in the whole world over the age of five knows who Samuel James Witwicky is from the onset of Dark of the Moon, we will have yet another gaping plot hole.
I also refuse to believe that Sam and Mikaela spent two years together, survived the events of the first two movies, and then break up[/she dies?] and he moves onto Rosie Huntington-Whitely. No. Megan Fox >>> any other potential Transformers love interest, always. This movie will be depressing for me regardless of ancillary issues like the fate of the planet and the resolution of the Cybertronian conflicts as they pertain to it, solely because Megan Fox is not in it.
But that's okay, I am willing to allow myself that pain if those ancillary issues are seen too and Optimus Prime/Bumblebee/Sentinel Prime [!] get to kick enough ass. [/B]
Also, everything about Armageddon was gay.
Originally posted by Lucius
It's really just a steaming pile of shit, with a mind numbingly stupid plot, and insulting affront to even a modicum of scientific accuracy.No wonder the masses liked it.
You're right, because movies have to reflect even a "modicum of scientific accuracy". Are you one of those people that sits at starbucks and criticizes people for liking movies that make no "realistic" or "scientific" sense?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're right, because movies have to reflect even a "modicum of scientific accuracy". Are you one of those people that sits at starbucks and criticizes people for liking movies that make no "realistic" or "scientific" sense?
Shouldn't you be busy sucking off your manwhore and getting AIDS so the world can be a better place?
And no, I'm a Thomas Hammer man.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
He loves Star Wars, which, by his own admission, involves technology that is like 99.99% completely impossible.So it can't be that. He's just a hater.
Star Wars isn't science fiction. It is fantasy in space and it does nothing to alter that perception. I just assume magic.
Originally posted by Lucius
Shouldn't you be busy sucking off your manwhore and getting AIDS so the world can be a better place?And no, I'm a Thomas Hammer man.
Who is my man whore? And even if I did have aids, I'll Magic Johnson them. That's ok, I think the world is a better place with me in it because it keeps people like you in check. 😄
I'm with DS here. Why would scientific accuracy improve a movie? Would you prefer that CSI:Miami spent two hours looking for fingerprints and then delineated the two weeks worth of lab tests they go through for every single case? Or hours of paperwork instead of sunglasses and YEEEEAAHH!!...?
Scientific accuracy is good for novels (sometimes) and engineering. For fiction it is terrible because if an author could write a scientifically accurate rocket (or nanobot or genetically engineered sentient computervirus) they would be doing that instead.
Originally posted by Zampanó
I'm with DS here. Why would scientific accuracy improve a movie? Would you prefer that CSI:Miami spent two hours looking for fingerprints and then delineated the two weeks worth of lab tests they go through for every single case? Or hours of paperwork instead of sunglasses and YEEEEAAHH!!...?Scientific accuracy is good for novels (sometimes) and engineering. For fiction it is terrible because if an author could write a scientifically accurate rocket (or nanobot or genetically engineered sentient computervirus) they would be doing that instead.
We agree on something?
Originally posted by RagingBoner
I'd prefer it to not be on the air and Boston Legal still be alive.
I, too, would prefer to see more Alan Shore. Did you know he [James Spader] was the original Dr. Jackson in the Stargate movie? He didn't sign on to the tv show and so they just got a different actor without commenting on the change. 😂