Spielberg was in on it to.
So you had two no talent hack jobs trying to make a 'masterpiece'........
Someone else must have been involved in the first film. Because the second one is just ASSSSSSSSSSS.
Bay has not made a good movie since Bad Boys.
It's more than him to blame for that horrible piece of trash that become a film.
Spielberg was in on it to.
So you had two no talent hack jobs trying to make a 'masterpiece'........
Yeah, "Schindler's List", "Poltergeist" and "Pvt. Ryan"...God, what trash.
Just messin' w/ you. Now, I know, he's got a few duds, but he didn't direct "Transformers" (how could he?). Just a Producer credit, right? ie) He's the money...and boy, what deep pockets does he have. Bay, despite being a 1-trick pony, is savvy enough to know where to get the film's backbone from, and Spielberg is about as strong as they come, financially speaking.
Q: What does a producer want from a movie they help make (bankroll)?
A: A return on their investment.
That's what's so sad. This, the "Saw" franchise, "Scary Movie" and all that crap, and so many other cash cows are designed to make $ not tell a compelling story, showcase cunning acting or cinematography, etc. The science (marketing) behind the art (film). So sad. They're not interested in taking Best Picture come March...just the quick buck.
Fabius Maximus The first one was crap, too. It's just more obvious in the second one.
Haven't seen it. Would rather see "Public Enemies" or "Bruno" this Fri (the 10th). Perhaps if I were drunk, free ticket, a really nice dinner (and a movie) kinda' date...maybe. But I saw the 1st and thought, "What good CGI...so, uh, what else is on the menu tonight sir?"
Fav part: when Jazz (Scatman Coruthers must be pi$$ed) gets ripped in 1/2 by Megatron. Satisfying to see the obvious pandering torn assunder quick.
Bay has not made a good movie since Bad Boys.
Really? Not the good movie bit, but "Bad Boys" being good itself. God, I hated Will Smith (Independence Day) for them selling his image. It finally got polished and he matured around "Ali". Martin Lawrence I find revolting, but I'm sure on some levels he has redeeming qualities I don't know about.
The second one was just stupid crap, despite both actors having fun.
I haven't seen the second movie because, well, I have heard so many bad things about it that I decided not to.
And I really wanted to! I liked the first movie! Sure it had some stupid parts to it, but it was fun to watch and the action was pretty good. Of course the product placement was stupid but I forgave it cause of the cool stuff going on. And of course hearing Prime's voice again.... well I was suddenly 6 years old again.
The thing is, I think I liked the first Transformers despite Bay, not because of him. Now I find out he has done what he does best, and that is draining the intelligence out of anything that he could theoretically blow up instead.
Basically, Michael Bay will take any idea and will slap explosions and American flags all over it until the stupid jackasses of our country will think they are anti-American if they don't like his film. Imagine if someone was trying to take a bucket of fecal matter, painted the bucket red white and blue, put a couple of sparkles over it, and then advertised it as "The all American bucket that real Americans would buy!", and you have a Bay movie.
Everything else he's done has been a colossal waste of time. And Pearl Harbor was just a flat-out disgrace on so many levels.
Don't get me started on the ones that came after aside from Beast Wars they are all pretty terrible.) Sure the product placement was heavy handed. (Especially since the car Bumblebee turned into didn't really exist yet.... but let's not go there... he should have stayed the older 77 Camaro... one it looks better) But other than that actually it was a pretty good film over all.
The problem with Spielberg is his over obsession with "human" characters. It has no place in a film involving Giant Robots for example. Pretty much anything of his that doesn't have a human cast, becomes terrible in a matter of moments because he keeps trying to tell the "human story" which is a problem, because between his influence and Michael Bay's love of mindless explosions the Robot Characters in the second film become meangingless Delivery Systems of explosions.
And don't get me started on the poor humor.
i'll be at the theater next to your empty seat having something called "fun".
It might also help for you guys to look up the words: opinion and facts. They're different!
I think Bad Boys is a good action movie...
That's cool then, I hope you didn't feel singled out per 3rd party taste or anything. Gamers as a whole tend to be passionate about, you know, dumb crap, ie) movies they didn't even make, only watch. Like that's some pedigree, right?
Oh, well. Still, there's good, bad, in between, bla bla bla. Depends what you're looking for in a film. Bay isn't exactly going to win an Oscar any time soon, but he's making $, and lots of it...I just, well, Bay films make me feel like you worked real hard to earn 7-figures but wound up jockeying a register @ White Castle w/ no say.
To be fair though, his action sequences are alright to good, but my standards are different per genre 'x' to 'y', not better or worse. It's just, uh, scripting and dialogue, especially, are about as wooden as a log flume. "Pearl Harbor" could've been good, really good...and the attack itself, highly engaging. And Kate Beckinsale...:D, still, not enough to really save it. I guess you think famous sneak attack on America, you expect, actual war, action, etc., not a drawn out soap opera pepped w/ a few dive bombers and oil fires. That's what baffles me. He's know for action films, right? How'd it wind up the way it did I guess?
You should try on some Michael Mann films if action is your bag. He spares no expense and really pushes hard for realism: "Heat" & "Last of the Mohicans" (fav of his) especially.
@ZB: Nic Cage...ah, nic nic nic, what are we gonna' do w/ you?
There was this time, "Raising Arizona", awesome, and Lynch's "Wild at Heart" when he was good, younger (late 80's), more cedible. ie) didn't have a big head yet. Now?
UrielApeiron: Go **** to Ran, Clockwork Orange or Citizen Kane for the 83rd time.
i'll be at the theater next to your empty seat having something called "fun".
Likely seated alone I'd bet w/ such bitterness like that, eh? No need for it btw. It's enough to say, "Well, I dig' it and here's why ____, cool?" And that's cool, at least in my book.
But to be fair, I just can't push off while watching "Ran" w/ all those strangers in the cinema clustered around me ;). Like I said on another movie thread a while back, "No one needs extra butter on their popcorn." Ease up, okay?
It might also help for you guys to look up the words: opinion and facts. They're different!
Or formal education in film and simple fandom. They're very different too.
That's the difference between a Pixar movie and a Bay movie.
They're not interested in taking Best Picture come March...just the quick buck.
I wouldn't be worried about taking "Best Picture" at a glorified trade show, either. Of course, I'd probably steer towards horror movie direction instead.
I wouldn't be worried about taking "Best Picture" at a glorified trade show, either. Of course, I'd probably steer towards horror movie direction instead.
Heh, I feel you. Good horror is harder to pull off than good action. But yeah, overall, I agree w/ your position.
Closest I imagine Bay getting into Oscar territory would be like Best Sound Editing or some sh-t. Actually, I think "Transformers 1" might've gotten some scrutiny in that or a like category a few years back. Of course, that's kinda' the purview of his editor, sound ppl, director of photography, or whatever per niche 'x', not Best Picture or Screenplay. But yeah, I don't anticipate him competing w/ the likes of "Slumdog..." or "RotK", that sorta' thing.
It would be refreshing though. Pleasant surprises. Like a parable from the Bible. They're designed to make you learn by upsetting you thoughtfully from your previously held stereotypes or expectations. The Good Samaritan; everyone knew they were dicks, cruel and selfish...then along comes this one that challenges that notion, leaving us going, "Uh, hmm?"
ex) Perhaps a quick look @ Zack Snyder might be apt; "Dawn of the Dead", "300", "Watchmen", all raised a lot of eyebrows, all pushed the "action" in no uncertain terms and so forth in a Bay-esque manner...maybe? However, final execution was more tasteful, less gimmicky. And I'm a huge zombie movie fan, so, yeah, I was sitting there for his 1st film w/ a mental scalpal, ready to dissect the Hell out of it. I was predisposed to going, "IDK, how could be ever touch Romero's cult classic?" I was pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. Good XP I guess.
And, perhaps his homage (like Bay w/ an epic war moment or a popular 80's aspect/cartoon) to 3 huge pop culture iconic moments (1 cult classic film, 2 super f'ing popular graphic novels) was purer, closer to the original creative vision. That's not an easy thing to do, especially when trafficing in our demographic. WE tend to be less forgiving than the experts just waiting to shred someone's attempted faithful recreation of, say, "Psycho" or another film classic that everyone knows about or likely saw. "Dracula" (most filmed/re-filmed piece in movie history ever) might be a better canidate, but I digress. No one flipped out when Coppola did his, admittedly, pretty damn good version, though it would/should carry more wait than a retelling of a f'ing kid's show. How odd, right?
By contrast, a good many ppl were upset/offended (offended over a recreation of a kid's show, really? :rolleyes
when "Transformers" came out. Why? Watermark was really high so expectations followed suit I guess. Says more about the demographic than the film itself, eh?I guess I find it unusual that a guy w/ a background in commercial media (Snyder), ads mostly ("Watchmen's" & "Dawn of the Dead's" opening credits spell this out perfectly) said, "Screw it, I'm doing film," and pulled it off w/ higher praise and results than his counterpart (Bay) who's had way more time, $, and resources to get to that same plateau...but still hasn't (IMO). And his films are hyped way the Hell more too.
It's weird; luck and a fickle population do that. No one knew who the Hell James Cameron was, then out of left field, bam!, "Terminator"...omg, it's so ahead of it's time, and bla bla bla. Yeah, pretty good, right?, but then he meanders into "Titanic" (tied w/ "RotK" and "Ben Hur" IIRC for most Oscars). Wtf? Didn't see that coming. But, truth be told, I'd rather watch his "The Abyss" or "Terminator" again than finally see "Titanic" (never watched it all the way through). Seemed overblown. Again, that's just me; the Oscar committee, apparently more "qualified" judges of film, thought otherwise
so I have to acknowledge that. Still, different strokes for different folks...StealthMarmot: There is a difference between understandable and enjoyable to a wide audience and simply lowest common denominator.
That's the difference between a Pixar movie and a Bay movie.
:whatsthis For your brevity w/ that truism, yes, very wise indeed. Well said.
The theoretic examples given are spot on too. Damn, I wish I thought of this.
This might shed more light on the subject:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800020334/filmography
ex) G/f & I saw "Wall-E" last year...holy sh-t, it's really really good, fantastic even. To scan the audience in the cinema; singles, couples on a date like us, little kids, grandparents, punks and emo kids, the occaisional 'G', etc. A pretty good x-section of America.
Then, a Bay movie...uh, long story short, a more limited demographic. Due note epic commercial advertisement, and wreckless product endorsement campaigns to help draw in larger numbers.
Often, when a film is advertised over and over, well, there's a reason. Sadly, that reason, often, not always, is cuz' it can't stand on its own. You'd think word of mouth would carry Transformers well, I mean, Hell, anyone growing up in the 80's knew this/probably saw an episode or had an action figure (I think I had around 12 as a kid). StarTrek, by contrast, didn't have a huge advertising campaign, but man, that blew up big time.
Long story short, there's a difference between hype and buzz.
This Transformers movie rocks though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r1WasN5JFQ
Awesome find. Nj.
If he's not taking an axe to the chest from Jack Nicholson (The Shining), he's being humiliated by a redneck confederate car. Poor Scatman...
I do feel he tends to simplify things more than they need to, get obsessed thing blowing stuff up and Americanise things to point where they lose all meaning to non-Americans.
Heh, I feel you. Good horror is harder to pull off than good action.
Indeed. I'd love to be able to do an indie horror film. I'd also like to send a memo to all of Hollywood that says, "BLOOD AND GORE AREN'T SCARY".
Go **** to Ran, Clockwork Orange or Citizen Kane for the 83rd time.
i'll be at the theater next to your empty seat having something called "fun".
It might also help for you guys to look up the words: opinion and facts. They're different!
Let me guess you think Twilight is the bestest novel ever too don't you.
If you're at the theater having that something called "fun" then you probably aren't watching Transformers II.
There's a difference between a movie that's good entertainment, and a movie that's mindless. 300 fantastic movie. Dark Knight? Grade A awesome. Transformers I? Good. Hell the original Transformers movie? Good. The Outlander? Actually surprisingly good. Mutant Chronicles? Good, Terminator 1, 2 and Salvation? All good. Aliens? Awesome. Star Wars IV-VI? Awesome. The original Indiana Jones films? Good. Lethal Weapon II? Good. Predator? OMFG Awesome. Crank? Entertaining (the original. I haven't seen the second one yet).
Transformers II? BAD. Why? Because it lacks what all of the others have. A coherent Plot. It also does what the others saw no purpose in being. 150 minutes of being too long. More than an hour of the film could flat out just not be there, and it wouldn't even affect the "good" parts. (The action) It also, lacks consistency to it's own franchise. (The first movie) While also lacking consistency to itself. This is not even mentioning the many plot holes.
I expect more out of my films than the quality that a 14 year old high on pixie sticks can produce.
I like action films, actually over all they are probably my favorite genre. Rating Transformers II on the standards I rate all the movies I watch, it fails in all departments, except being visually appealing. And I'm sorry I'm not one of those Mindless DBZ FFVII fans that think GRAPHICS >>>>>EVERTINGZ!"
Go **** to Ran, Clockwork Orange or Citizen Kane for the 83rd time.
i'll be at the theater next to your empty seat having something called "fun".
It might also help for you guys to look up the words: opinion and facts. They're different!
Tee hee. :embarrass
I watched Gran Torino a couple of weeks ago On Demand and that movie rocked. I usually like Clint Eastwood movies. "Unforgiven" was totally awesome and the "Everywhich Way..." movies were funny as hell when I was growing up but Clint in Gran Torino was just like my Grandpa and I loved my Grandpa so the movie goes up a notch.
Okay, thank you for putting up with this derail. We now return you to the scheduled thread already in progress and with fewer comercial interuptions.
Nic Cage can't carry Sean Connery's turd, let alone a movie. He's awful. Really.
Agreed! I didn't realize how much I couldn't stand him until I saw the Astroboy preview; I was totally on board with it, until they flashed his name in the credits. Total dealbreaker.
On topic - Bay's alright. His gift lies in making solid action sequences (not necessarily just making things blow up). As far as storytelling goes...well, he's got a few tricks that he uses too often. I rather liked the Island and the first Transformers. Transformers 2 had some serious script problems.
Completely unrelated to Micheal Bay but it was a movie and so I'm putting it here.
I watched Gran Torino a couple of weeks ago On Demand and that movie rocked. I usually like Clint Eastwood movies. "Unforgiven" was totally awesome and the "Everywhich Way..." movies were funny as hell when I was growing up but Clint in Gran Torino was just like my Grandpa and I loved my Grandpa so the movie goes up a notch.
Okay, thank you for putting up with this derail. We now return you to the scheduled thread already in progress and with fewer comercial interuptions.
Gran Torino was amazing. I am getting it the first chance I can.
Agreed! I didn't realize how much I couldn't stand him until I saw the Astroboy preview; I was totally on board with it, until they flashed his name in the credits. Total dealbreaker.
On topic - Bay's alright. His gift lies in making solid action sequences (not necessarily just making things blow up). As far as storytelling goes...well, he's got a few tricks that he uses too often. I rather liked the Island and the first Transformers. Transformers 2 had some serious script problems.
Serious script problems? Understatement much? One of the best lines in the movie is "That's a good question"...... ugh..
Let me guess you think Twilight is the bestest novel ever too don't you.
If you're at the theater having that something called "fun" then you probably aren't watching Transformers II.
There's a difference between a movie that's good entertainment, and a movie that's mindless. 300 fantastic movie. Dark Knight? Grade A awesome. Transformers I? Good. Hell the original Transformers movie? Good. The Outlander? Actually surprisingly good. Mutant Chronicles? Good, Terminator 1, 2 and Salvation? All good. Aliens? Awesome. Star Wars IV-VI? Awesome. The original Indiana Jones films? Good. Lethal Weapon II? Good. Predator? OMFG Awesome. Crank? Entertaining (the original. I haven't seen the second one yet).
Transformers II? BAD. Why? Because it lacks what all of the others have. A coherent Plot. It also does what the others saw no purpose in being. 150 minutes of being too long. More than an hour of the film could flat out just not be there, and it wouldn't even affect the "good" parts. (The action) It also, lacks consistency to it's own franchise. (The first movie) While also lacking consistency to itself. This is not even mentioning the many plot holes.
I expect more out of my films than the quality that a 14 year old high on pixie sticks can produce.
I like action films, actually over all they are probably my favorite genre. Rating Transformers II on the standards I rate all the movies I watch, it fails in all departments, except being visually appealing. And I'm sorry I'm not one of those Mindless DBZ FFVII fans that think GRAPHICS >>>>>EVERTINGZ!"
I mostly agree with you, but right at the end you lost it. Obviously you have not played, nor do you actually know anything about Final Fantasy VII. For one thing, the graphics are atrocious. Two while the gameplay is excellent (for someone who likes CRPGs) the story is great, one of the greatest in any video game ever.
It looks craptastic today. Obviously (most "3d" PS1 games do), however at the time more people had Raging Hard Ons over it's pretty graphics than it's actual story.
I don't hold 7 as nearly that great story wise. I'm a IV, VI, Tactics kind of guy. Hell I hold 1s proto Story in higher regard. 7 is pretty much a rehash of the franchise with some names changed around, which is one of the reasons I don't like it especially much. It tells those parts well, but really it doesn't quite do the previous stories justice as much as the previous games did.
I also don't like 7 because every character is effectively a Spam Platform which is kinda meh to me on a good day. I like Classes in my RPGs. Or Limited Ability Pools. 7 introduced one of the things I hate most about FF presently and thats the "I CANZ DO EVERYTHING" characters. In which I mean, every one in the party can do the exact same stuff over and over again with near equal proficiency.
And 7 brought in the DBZ, graphics > all crowd... which has single handedly damned that franchise into mediocrity on a good day basis.
And 7 brought in the DBZ, graphics > all crowd... which has single handedly damned that franchise into mediocrity on a good day basis.
To be fair, with the exceptions of 4-6 and 9, the main series has pretty much always been mediocre.
To be fair, with the exceptions of 4-6 and 9, the main series has pretty much always been mediocre.
True. Though Tactics stands out as well. (Original Tactics)
Okay, let's just say there's a difference of opinions here, I happen to think FF X and FF XII are great myself. I haven't actually played as much of FF VII or FF VIII but I enjoyed those as well. It has nothing to do with graphics, either. But I suggest if we're going to continue discussing this, we take it to another thread...
Why? It's not like Michael Bay is actually worth discussing... everyone knows just how craptastic he is. :P
True. Though Tactics stands out as well. (Original Tactics)
Hence why I said the main series.....although I can't really think of any non main series FF titles that were good besides FFT. So I'll just revise it to "with the exceptions of 4-6, 9, and FFT, FF has pretty much always been mediocre." And everyone is happy.....except for the Square fan boys.:D
And they'll be no making them happy. Until we bow down to the Cut Scenes for every sword slash, and Spam To Win = good philosophy. :P
Hey there is nothing wrong with having semi-cutscenes for your attacks. I mean just loojk at Xenosaga Episode 1....oh wait right I was the only person who didn't think that battle system was too slow. *sigh*
Meh, I don't care what you like, but I love Final Fantasy. I don't particularly like being called a fanboy. It's one thing to say you don't like something, it's another entirely to insult those who do.
Sorry I didn't mean to insult you, I was just going for some tongue in cheek humor there.
wake up call if you like it...if you hate it...realize it is a profit makeing movie...so atleast give other the respect of they like it...
As for the whole slim plot thing...did we see the same movie?
Sam is doing the whole growing up going to college thing, then has to do the reluctint hero thing
the basic plot follows him as he has been implanted with the all spark knowladge, and at first is reluctiant, and at the end is pushing to find the matrix of leadership (yea, I loved that from G1...) and use it to revive Prime.
over all it was a so so plot wraped in high action...I have seen much worse.
and yes the movie about giant robot wars with alien weapons had lots of explosions....who here thinks it could have been any other way.
cretics here and in the papers don't like it becuse it was trying to be a fun action movie appealing at a basic level...come down off your high horse...it is not trying to be Mcbeath, or even oceans 11...it is trying to be a childish fun ride.
Heck I read a review that said the plot was minamal, it was like he was trying to jam in every robot ever made,along side huge elabrate fight sceans with giant robots. It had dick and fart jokes, was most appealing to children...except for the huge amount of pandering to megan fox's body...
THAT IS THE POINT...giant robots major fights to appeal to the kid in us, and a hot chick half undressed to look at...not high art, but not the worst thing ever...
Ontop of that he's a teenager, who's not only got the girl of his dreams. He's got the Car, and not just The Car, but an awesome F****** robot, and ontop of that he has SAVED THE WORLD already. Name me a teenager (or otherwise) that would give up that kind of life.
No I don't like it because it FAILS at everything it does including good action sequences. They were hard to follow, (hell you never even see the death of the Twins), while also being filled with racism, stereotypes, and more ***** jokes than a 14 year old high on pixie sticks makes on a daily basis.
The first film is a good movie. I rate the second film on THOSE standards. Which by the way everything you said, the first film meets or exceeds. And the second film completely fails to deliver. The first film had decent humor which could be appreciated by it's Target Audience and the people most likely paying for the ticket too. It had well done action scenes, and they were evenly paced and spaced. It also, had decent to good acting in it and a decent script.
Basically the second film is everything the first film isn't.
It's not a matter of being too hard on the movie, it's not a matter of "not getting the point" because I understand the point of these movies. I have watched better versions of the same genre, and hell of the same series. I listed several movies infact that do what Transformers II attempts to do, much better. And not a single one of them is a Macbeth, save for perhaps Dark Knight. Which is not even close to what I was expecting to get quality wise. I was expecting, Crank, or even Transformers I and this movie not only fails at it, it directly attempts to give it's view the bird as it revels in it's own fecal matter.
most of the movies that do get acolades (the english patient) are unwatchable to me most of the time. i think critics miss the point of a movie. to draw emotion and entertaining diversion away from the mundane hanster wheel of real life. movies tell you the best parts of a story zero in on most relevant and exciting information presentable.
for me i do want the fun ride. i like a movie that doesn't take itself seriously all the time. i can watch braveheart only once every other year. its too deep and emotionally wrenching. is it a good movie? sure.
but enough of the tearing up of movies for not having depth, thilling plot, immersive story line, blah blah blah.
some of the best movies of all time can be summerized on one sentence.
jaws: man vs nature in the form of a bad ass shark that eats people.
duel: man vs truck all across a highway trying to kill him.
jurrasic park: man vs dinosaurs reanimated through science.
you take a simple idea and expand. or you get crap like hellboy 2
oh yeah comments on mike bay, he need to pull the stupid camera back at least to a far shot and lets cuts during fight scenes. anyone else notice an annoying political agenda in transformers 2? how in the first movie its all pro president (shutting down sector seven, immidiate trust in the autobots) and the second the president is either hiding in a bunker hole, or sending beurocrats after optimus. lame mike, really. oh yeah and the two small autobots not dying was a missed oppertunity.
Persnally I like this takeon the movie. I have no idea of how accurate it is(since I didn't go see the movie), but I got some good laughs out of it.
anyone else notice an annoying political agenda in transformers 2? how in the first movie its all pro president (shutting down sector seven, immidiate trust in the autobots) and the second the president is either hiding in a bunker hole, or sending beurocrats after optimus.
I dunno about this, it seemed like a pretty natural progression to me. In the first movie folks were flying by the seat of their pants, and the prez was only there to eat a disgustingly unhealthy snack cake; in the second movie, the government has had some time to get used to things and are now doing the inevitable power-grab.
...the two small autobots not dying was a missed oppertunity.
Yes, yes it was.
Persnally I like this takeon the movie. I have no idea of how accurate it is(since I didn't go see the movie), but I got some good laughs out of it.
Agreed, and it is very accurate.
The bit about the maths being wrong is the only bit I can disagree with at all (there was another robot down there)
And 7 brought in the DBZ, graphics > all crowd... which has single handedly damned that franchise into mediocrity on a good day basis.
This is one hell of a pretentious statement sir.
But I have to agree that 7 was my least favorite Final Fantasy, besides 10. or X. Or what the hell ever they want to call it.
I hated X. Why? In a word, Wakka. In 3 words, Wakka and Tidus. In many words, the effing characters. Wakka was annoying and stupid, Lulu was unnecessary and just there for fanservice (her victory pose was BENDING OVER for Gygax's sake), Auron kicked ass but he dies, Yuna was just uninteresting (of course I only played the first like 3rd), and worst of all, the main character was someone I just could not like! He was a whiny idiot who had a "Daddy didn't love me!!" complex. Plus he even looked like a complete wuss. And he used a sword. Why did he know how to use a sword? I DON'T KNOW! He's a professional athlete, he shouldn't know this sort of thing! At least Wakka had an explanation!
It hurts because that game came right after 9, which has not only the best and most likable main character in the Final Fantasy series, but I could argue one of the most likable game protagonists of all time. Zidane. Hell, most of the cast of 9 was likable in their own goofy ways. It was real refreshing after the barrage of "I'm too badass for emotions" characters from 7 and 8.
7 Was, well, good. It just was incredibly overhyped and eventually overdone. I mean of all the Final Fantasys only 7 and 10 got any sort of extra content, and those 2 deserved it the least out of 6-10. And Sephiroth... don't get me started on him.
Wait what was this thread about? Oh yeah.
That article.... I read it and I have to ask, is that REALLY what the hell happens? REALLY? Michael Bay, GO DIE IN A FIRE! PLEASE!
I realized that the movie was released on July 4th (Or at least that was the intention). How freaking appropriate. Cheap flag waving and distractions by pretty explosions. That sums up Michael Bay in a damn nutshell.
Few things annoy me like snobby film buffs who try to make the point that a budget and special effects and a film made in America will be brainless and stupid, but unfortunatly they keep being fed crap by Michael Bay which serve as examples as to why they think that way. The man truly has taken what could be an art form and turns it into sheer lowest common denominator for the American public.
Americans are NOT a bunch of dumbasses who walk around stuffing their faces with cheap food and buying anything with an American flag or that says "support the troops" (at least not MOST of us) but apparently Michael Bay thinks we all are.
It hurts because that game came right after 9, which has not only the best and most likable main character in the Final Fantasy series, but I could argue one of the most likable game protagonists of all time. Zidane. Hell, most of the cast of 9 was likable in their own goofy ways. It was real refreshing after the barrage of "I'm too badass for emotions" characters from 7 and 8.
Ironic isn't it that 9 is generally considered one of the poorer recieved ones.:P (Mind you I loved it)
personally tying to look for depth and intruiging plot in an action or adventure movie is like giving critical review to to find choclate-y gourment indulgence from wendys frosties. seriously whats the point?
That's bull. There are dozens of action and adventure movies with coherent plots and well developed characters. Take last years The Dark Knight and Iron Man, for example.
Americans are NOT a bunch of dumbasses who walk around stuffing their faces with cheap food and buying anything with an American flag or that says "support the troops" (at least not MOST of us) but apparently Michael Bay thinks we all are.
Umm. I disagree. And so does the box office. ;)
Look, I'm an American and I'm not that way, but you have to admit, we're a country populated by a huge number of nationalistic morons. We only care about flash and glitz. Only. We worry more about which celeb is ****ing which other more than we do unemployment. Our news programs are thinly veiled (if at all) entertainment programs. We elect celebrities or men from families so rich there's no possible way they can understand - let alone respresent - the common citizen. The country is falling apart but we need to know who Michelle O is wearing. We're pathetic. We are. And that's why movies like this make money and will continue to do so.
Ok, that was kind of anti-US. :P Here's the thing, though: We ain't all that much different than anyplace else - no matter how vehemently those people would like to think so. We've just got our heads stuffed up our asses as far as they do. The only **** we see is what's up there. ;)
****..... I'm just gonna link it anytime someone says "Transformers II IS GOOD!"
I consider Transformers II to actually be anti american. But then I consider most americans anti american at this point since no one listened to the people that reviewed it before hand..
And also, that's another thing Movie Critics, have given themselves such a terrible reputation over the years that it's hard to take them seriously.
However, internet reviewers tend to do much better as it's actually done by people that watch the film and evaluate it for what it is. Not by how much they are being paid by someone else.
The problem of course is that Internet Reviews, require the would be viewer to do some research.
That's bull. There are dozens of action and adventure movies with coherent plots and well developed characters. Take last years The Dark Knight and Iron Man, for example.
Directors. Same sport, different starting line up. Bay is the highly hyped and artificially popularized one w/ little to no talent, mostly flare. His counterparts (below) are the backbone of a good team that incorporate several elements in one, not just fixating on 1 aspect (action sequeneces usually) and blowing the Hell up out of them.
ie) Man cannot live on bread alone, right?
Christopher Nolan cut his teeth on "Memento", "Following" (fav), and part 1 (batman). He's not just some hack. In fact, this guy is pretty damn good. Jon Favreau, though not my fav director, knows his stuff too. They just simply can't be in the same league despite having some action movies under their belt. Just look @ the filmography of each. 1-trick pony or more well rounded, and by association, a better grasp of more cinematic elements?
This is why I'm always interested to see a director known for 'x' starting to get his feet wet in genre 'y'. But if you don't branch out, don't try new thigns, you're condening yourself and your entire crew, cast, etc. to an admittedly limited view, even if that view is something you do well. It's just 1, not indicative of a good understanding and execution of a few more.
Consider: Danny Boyle. He was 2nd-tier, a few ppl thought highly of him, pretty good, but nothing mind blowing, right? "Trainspotting" (drama) got a lot of attention. Pretty good too. Okay, he's on the map. Then "Millions" and "The Beach", some comedy & romance, hard to pin down, but both fairly different than a heroin-fueld trauma fest, not bad either. Then "28 Days Later" (horror). That impressed the Hell out of me (and don't say it was just the zombies). He told a better story (and it's been done and redone) w/ less. That's hard as Hell to do. "Sunshine" (mystery/sci-fi) also was top shelf. Then, what do we know from last year? "Slumdog..." and we know how well that did. So, he's a made man now.
Point is, he wasn't afraid to try new things just like Nolan did when he bit the bullet and did Batman(s). Nothing ventured, nothign gained. Bay does not seem to deviate from the science of Hollywood which will secure, perhaps his bank account, but not his legacy. Which is more valuable?
Perhaps, one day, he'll try something radically different from his other films as directors that get pigeonholed are want of doing, but totally overcompensate often in attempts to dispel any myths & rumors. You could see the attempt in "Pearl Harbor"; convulted love story w/ Japanese dive bombers here and there. Didn't work well. Backing $ was like, "That's great kid, but uh, stick to what you know." aka, Keep making the $ generating fluff and sign the checks.
Hell even Crank and War.
I disagree on 300. It's nothing but a copy of a bad comic. And it takes itself seriously, which is a major offense for a movie that is so over the top.
That's bull. There are dozens of action and adventure movies with coherent plots and well developed characters. Take last years The Dark Knight and Iron Man, for example.
yes but they are rare. in the hundreds of action/adventure films out there and you hand pick two that i very well agree with. excellent riposte.
so i can't argue the point.
curse your sound logic, and good taste!
The Outlander was astoundingly good. I agree on Predator (despite Arnie) and Crank, and like to add Shoot'em up. The latter two don't take themselves seriously like Bay's movies do. That's why they work.
Well, "Shoot'em Up" definetly didn't take itself too seriously. Kinda' a black comedy wrapped around an action movie. Pot shots @ the genre w/in the genre. Others, IDK. Never saw "Outlander" or "Crank".
I disagree on 300. It's nothing but a copy of a bad comic. And it takes itself seriously, which is a major offense for a movie that is so over the top.
Really? Wow. Okay, well, I respect your opinion, but I must disagree on the bad comic bit. Miller's work got critical acclaim, some fandom, and analysis which made it an attractive work to adapt to film. Hell, comic book properties are like the new commodity, most of them making serious cash and having improved in quality in the last few years (Watchmen, Ironman, Sin City, Batman, etc) after a series of "wtf happened" moments.
Not sure how it took itself too seriously given the serious subject matter. Gotta' remember, comics are more stylized than real life (realism), so a certain suspension of disbelief is required to understand (appreciate? identify?) the media so to speak.
Like understanding in a film noir, "It's gonna' be raining like 80% of the time and everyone smokes seductively." Though IRL, it's different.
Like anime blood fountain deaths. We know it isn't really like that IRL, but it can add a real dramatic punch to a scene by sudden explosion of movement and color, stressing the impact of the moment, capitalizing on someone's heightened emotive state, whatever. Reason 'x'...
Certain quirks and oddities expressed over a period of time just get folded into a genre and become gospel despite reality screaming, "No, you're raping the way the cosmos works!" If its a cinematic device that works, and more importantly, is handled well (Bay, I'm looking at you :mad
, breaking certain real life truisms and stressing form over function can work. It does in host of other media, namely fine art, modern music, whatever. We just have different expectations in cinema and because it's incorporating picture, sound, movement, placement and bla bla bla (more than 1 photo [image only] or 1 song [sound only]), things get a little wonky.Really? Wow. Okay, well, I respect your opinion, but I must disagree on the bad comic bit. Miller's work got critical acclaim, some fandom, and analysis which made it an attractive work to adapt to film.
I don't have a problem with comic books not showing reality (Duh!). I have only problems with bad comics. Miller is overrated. His works sure look good, but they are essentially dead. Or soulless, if you prefer. His characters are bland, one-dimensional.
Take 30 Days of Night. That's a comic adaption that worked. It not only transports the despair and violence of the original, but shows of a very distinctive style that has almost nothing to do with the comics. The choice not to translate the vampire's language makes them even more menacing, because you don't know what their motives are.
Oh, and you should watch Crank. It's even faster than Shoot'em Up, and more over the top.
Take 30 Days of Night. That's a comic adaption that worked. It not only transports the despair and violence of the original, but shows of a very distinctive style that has almost nothing to do with the comics. The choice not to translate the vampire's language makes them even more menacing, because you don't know what their motives are.
Wow, really? 30 Days of Night was so dull I couldn't even finish it, and I thought that was the general consensus.
But while I disagree with the particular example, I think you are correct that a good adaptation needs to be based more on the feel and broad concepts of the original, while offering something new as well.
These frame-for-frame adaptations of comics where the focus more on getting the angle of the camera right so that they can mimic every panel of the comic and less on providing a new and interesting interpretation of the source are just pointless.
Of course you go too far in the opposite direction and you have Wanted, where the film had basically nothing to do with the original.
Wow, really? 30 Days of Night was so dull I couldn't even finish it, and I thought that was the general consensus.
Well, it's a slow movie. That's not everyones taste.
I don't have a problem with comic books not showing reality (Duh!). I have only problems with bad comics. Miller is overrated. His works sure look good, but they are essentially dead. Or soulless, if you prefer. His characters are bland, one-dimensional.
IDK about "dead" or "soulless" (in comics anyway ;)), but I think he has been hyped to a degree beyond my understanding and/or taste. After "Sin City" broke out (film, not comic), yeah, you could see this explosion w/ ppl pushing given his take on Batman (and Nolan's similar rendering), 300, The Spirit, etc.
Not a huge fan, but he tells a good tale(s). Dark Knight Returns, 300, and Sin City vol 1 are in my stacks, but not my favs. So so. I group Miller w/ Stan Lee. More sensantionalized, but they have their merits. 5/10?
Currently, I always make a point to get the trades of DMZ and The Walking Dead, then, if something catches my fancy, sure, but otherwise, not a big comic consumer. There was a time though...
Take 30 Days of Night. That's a comic adaption that worked. It not only transports the despair and violence of the original, but shows of a very distinctive style that has almost nothing to do with the comics. The choice not to translate the vampire's language makes them even more menacing, because you don't know what their motives are.
Oh, good call. I really enjoyed the film, though I never read the works. From what I perused @ stores, the art was really avant garde, fast & loose. Not really my bag, but I loved the plot for its simplicity/vision. For those that don't know; Barrow, Alaska, in the Arctic Cirlce, point of Winter forbids daylight for, you guessed it, 30 days. Enter vampires -> feeding frenzy, survival horror...
Film did avg in the theatres, but the score, Danny Huston (Marlow, alpha male vamp), scenery, etc was tasteful...which is saying something. Most vampire movies suck. They're cliche and gimmicky. I'm not sure how it could've been a truly faithful adaptation w/ the original art style in the books to film, but I thought it came out better than avg in the end.
...you should watch Crank. It's even faster than Shoot'em Up, and more over the top.
Unsure. Roomie is a huge Statham fan...so, incidentally, I had to watch all the Transporter movies (not a fan), though, I kinda' dig Jason Statham, but they're turning him into just an action movie star and I found that he could actually act somewhat in "Snatch". I don't want to see an otherwise good prospect turn into the English Steven Segal, you know?
Unsure. Roomie is a huge Statham fan...so, incidentally, I had to watch all the Transporter movies (not a fan)...
'Crank' is about on par with the first Transporter movie IMO. It's fast, fun, and doesn't take itself too seriously. (Not the same reasons I liked 'The Transporter,' which has some very solid martial arts action and rarely seen 'crowd control' moments.) If it seems video game-ish...perhaps that was the point, as evidenced by the old school GTA-style clip before the credits. :D
Statham's an odd cookie; he seems to enjoy bad movies. Every once in a while he finds himself in a decent movie ('Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels,' 'The Bank Job' & 'Snatch'), but usually it's all about B-movie fun (War, Cellular, Death Race, that Dungeon Siege movie, sequels to anything he's done). Did you know he even has an uncredited role in 'The Pink Panther' remake?
Yet, despite all this, I'm still a fan...Well, it's a slow movie. That's not everyones taste.
I don't mind a slow movie. Slow, predictable, unoriginal, with flat characters with little development and horrendous acting, that I start to mind.