Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

[MaulFan]

I'm not expecting a master piece....

We're talking about Transformers here....bunch of robots

Depends on definition of a masterpiece. For the genre and subject matter, I would call the first Transformers movie a masterpiece, it served its purpose in every way that a fun summer blockbuster should, great escapism.

TF2, while also a fun summer movie, was missing some of the fun elements that made the first so enjoyable for me. Granted being Transformers, there's a certain feeling that focus should be on them in robot mode, but I love a good car chase too and I think TF2 would have been cooler if it had a blend of the ammount of non-robot action we got in TF1 and the robot action we got in TF2.

 

[Deeznutz6]

Depends on definition of a masterpiece. For the genre and subject matter, I would call the first Transformers movie a masterpiece, it served its purpose in every way that a fun summer blockbuster should, great escapism.

TF2, while also a fun summer movie, was missing some of the fun elements that made the first so enjoyable for me. Granted being Transformers, there's a certain feeling that focus should be on them in robot mode, but I love a good car chase too and I think TF2 would have been cooler if it had a blend of the ammount of non-robot action we got in TF1 and the robot action we got in TF2.

Spot on MF, and thats the problem the first was so good, you expected that or more for this one and got less this time around simply because the writers were to lazy, they figured who cares, we will make money regardless.

 

[SpenK]

Out Of Topic I Saw Michael Bay Today Here in Miami PinPin it In His Ferrari......

 

[jnmx2000]

What people fail to realize is that even with todays technology, a serious Transformer movie is not possible. It would cost way too much. Which is why Bay and company went this route. This was more the studios decision than it was Bay's. What CGI was used in Bay's film was very very little compared to what would be needed if it was a "serious" film, which had every Bot character fully realized the way we wanted them to be. I mean, having Optimus just stand there and talk costs some serious money compared to an actor.

So I know, I know.. I want a serious Transformer flick with nothing but bots in full character kicking ass and very little humans as possible too. But I think we're going to have to wait another 10 to 20 years when technology has far advanced it's self to get one. Next generation guys.

i'm not saying no humans, they are essential to transformers, but one of the reasons why bays transformers cost so much is because of the crazy ass designs. simplify it, it'll cost less, they brag about how many parts are digitally used when I could care less and it just seems like a lot of money out the window when you could save so much with some changes. BUT I don't want people getting the impression that I think this movie is wrong or shouldn't happen or I look down on people that enjoy it. this is just another incarnation of transformers. I just find this one very unsatisfying and I just don't like it the way alot of other people do. it's not like I saw the film wanting to hate it, I actually liked the first one but I didn't like this one that much.

 

[MaulFan]

Spot on MF, and thats the problem the first was so good, you expected that or more for this one and got less this time around simply because the writers were to lazy, they figured who cares, we will make money regardless.

I don't think they got lazy, i think Bay just made an error in catering to fans demand.

Everyone said after the first TF, great, but we want more robot action. Instead of taking everything right from the first film and adding more robot action to that, he seemed to focus purely on the robot action, so you get a boat load of it in TF2 but almost none of the other good parts of TF1.

The most ideal TF movie in Bay's style would be a marriage of the best parts of each film into one, maybe part 3 will be such, if they do it.

 

[IrishJedi]

I think we might be tossing around terms like "masterpiece" a little too loosely... in any context.

 

[MaulFan]

To me, a masterpiece is anything that very well accomplishes what it sets out to do, and I think the first Transformers did very well at being the type of movie Bay wanted it to be. It's not a masterpiece in the gigantic library of films ever to exist, but within its own context I think it was.

 

[IrishJedi]

That's still a pretty loose definition of Masterpiece, dude.

Labeling something a "Masterpiece" implies artistic and intellectual perfection, a gold standard, and that there is not one single thing you would/could change about it to make it better.

 

[MaulFan]

Well, I can't think of any other good, one word descriptions for it, but I do feel for it's type of film, TF1 had a lot going for it.

 

[carbo-fation]

Finally saw it. Enjoyed it very much. Very entertaining. Typical Bay movie......weak plot/dialogue, amazing graphics and action. Shia didn't annoy me as much as he did in the previous film. Excellent blockbuster!

 

[Jesseawilson]

People always rationalize a bad movie by saying "it is what it is", it's a "popcorn flick" or it was just a "fun" experience ect. How annoying is that?

True lies and last action hero are the first two that come to mind when I think of "popcorn flicks". I don't know why, I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean anyway. It should just mean a movie you would enjoy eating popcorn while watching.... I enjoyed them both immensely. Funny that they both have Arnold in them lol

Did I have fun at Transformers 2, sure I did. was it a "popcorn flick", who the f knows. Was the movie pretty bad in some parts and incredibly cringe worthy at many other parts, sure it was. The part that sucks is that the bad parts are spread out through the entire movie. It would have been so much easier if they were contained to one part and I could have just written off a certain 30 minutes or so of the movie and thoroughly enjoyed the rest. Some good editing could have easily made it an 8/10, on par with the first one.

PS If I had it to do over again I would not take my 6 year old to go see it. I would have traded "F" word one time like in most PG-13 movies for the 27 times balls or scrotum was mentioned.

 

[BadMoon]

People always rationalize a bad movie by saying "it is what it is", it's a "popcorn flick" or it was just a "fun" experience ect. How annoying is that?

I hate that phrase when people describe a movie.

 

[IrishJedi]

If I had it to do over again I would not take my 6 year old to go see it. I would have traded "F" word one time like in most PG-13 movies for the 27 times balls or scrotum was mentioned.

I think that alone illustrates Bay's completely immature though process as much as anything. And then there is the dog-on-dog action (multiple times, mind you, because once was clearly not enough), leg-humping, robot balls, and more. Seriously, there are 15 year olds out there with more evolved sensibilities than him.

But I'll give the guy this... he can shoot some very pretty stuff and does know how to design and stage action sequences like nobody's business. And unlike hacks like Brett Ratner, Stephen Sommers and McG, Michael Bay is a filmmaker with his own vision. Can't take that away from him.

 

[MaulFan]

People always rationalize a bad movie by saying "it is what it is", it's a "popcorn flick" or it was just a "fun" experience ect. How annoying is that?

I don't consider it a rationalization, I think if you look at films, there are a lot of goals people have with films they make.

Frankly, I consider a large number of the oscar films to be far less entertaining than a lot of movies, but they are really good within the context of the aim the filmmakers had with the film, they are a great success.

Michael Bay doesn't set out to make films that engross you in character development and feature intricately woven plots, his goal is to make a 2 hour film that gives the viewers an exhilarating and fun experience, and to me, that's where the term popcorn flick comes from, movies that are more to be like a visual "ride" than a film to be measured for the subtle qualities.

I think it's stupid to try and hold every film to the same standards, the beauty of movies is there's a wide range of types and styles and things to gain from the watching.

I watch Transformers to give my mind some fun time, I watch Batman Begins to get engrossed in characters, I watch City of Angels to watch an interesting story.

I can discuss films and find pros and cons in them, but some of the opinions I read at this site, it seems almost like people have forgotten how to just have fun watching it, like there's this epic measure all films have to live up to and anything short is just trash. There are some really bad movies, and then there are some that may seem bad by high standards, but for certain functions they are perfect.

 

[MaulFan]

Michael Bay is a filmmaker with his own vision. Can't take that away from him.

Indeed, watch 2 or 3 Bay films and you'll be able to spot a movie's made by him without seeing credits, he does have his signature.

 

[IrishJedi]

As long as people agree that some "popcorn flicks" really are terrible movies then it's not a rationalization, it's just a label.

And Jesse brings up a good point. It shouldn't be a stigma, because some "popcorn flicks" are actually artistically competent, well-made movies. There is a large scale of quality within this own sub-genre.

 

[Kuzeh]

The problem is Transformers isn't supposed to be "toilet-humor"...
If I wanted that I'd watch Superbad, Pineapple Express or The Hangover...

Bay has reduced Robot Heroes into disposable teenage humor fodder...
I really can't believe people defending this piece of crap...
no offense...

 

[MaulFan]

Well like I said, there are some movies that by mass opinion are just bad, but there are some that get labelled as bad simply because they don't serve a certain purpose, even if that's not their intent and they serve another purpose.

I've really gotten into movies where you're engrossed in characters and story, so far the only film to do that this summer for me was Star Trek, but I dont' consider the others I've seen bad, they have their uses. I looked forward to TF for fun, and my dissappointments were a lack of some of the fun I expected based on the first TF.

 

[Jesseawilson]

The problem is Transformers isn't supposed to be "toilet-humor"...
If I wanted that I'd watch Superbad, Pineapple Express or The Hangover...

Bay has reduced Robot Heroes into disposable teenage humor fodder...
I really can't believe people defending this piece of crap...
no offense...

Which is what encompasses my disappointment with the movie. Seriously treat our childhood memories with a little respect instead of reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. Hey retard! all you had to do was follow the same pattern as the first one and you would have been fine!

I may be forgetting some of the episodes but I don't remember the weed brownie, leg humping, bodily fluid, scrotum waving episode.....

 

[jnmx2000]

That's still a pretty loose definition of Masterpiece, dude.

Labeling something a "Masterpiece" implies artistic and intellectual perfection, a gold standard, and that there is not one single thing you would/could change about it to make it better.

I agree with this, calling either of the transformer movies masterpieces is a little bit of a stretch. masterpieces in the action genre are films like Raiders of the lost ark, terminator and terminator 2, the dark knight, aliens, heat. those are all films that took the genre of action and made it more than what people thought it could be. transformers did not do this. just my opinion though.