Movie Review - Transformers 3 : Dark of the Moon (spoilers)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowspearer

The problem again, comes back to Bay's sensibilities as a director. If say, Terminator 2 were remade and Bay directed, you'd wind up with something very similar to TF1. It doesn't matter how good a concept you might have for a movie; if the director is a poor fit, then you're going to wind up with something missing the mark.

If Bay hadn't had the balls to take on the project, the trilogy might've ended up in the hands of someone truly dreadful like M. Night Shyamalan who I still haven't forgiven for what he did to "The Last Airbender". It could've ended up like Dragon Ball Evolution or Tekken, but it didn't. Just because we can think of stacks of better directors, it doesn't mean that any of them would've wanted to put 5 years into a trilogy about transforming robot kids toys or have even been capable of bringing them to life in such a believable fashion.

Shirokaze Speaks Truth!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shirokaze

If Bay hadn't had the balls to take on the project, the trilogy might've ended up in the hands of someone truly dreadful like M. Night Shyamalan who I still haven't forgiven for what he did to "The Last Airbender". It could've ended up like Dragon Ball Evolution or Tekken, but it didn't. Just because we can think of stacks of better directors, it doesn't mean that any of them would've wanted to put 5 years into a trilogy about transforming robot kids toys or have even been capable of bringing them to life in such a believable fashion.

Yet that's just it. When the best you can say is "it could have been worse" (and I'll see your Shayman and raise you Uwe Boll on that front :p ), or say that you had to lower your expectations to enjoy something, then it's nothing to write home about.

Furthermore if a decent enough treatment had've been in play to begin with then I can't see why the likes of Ridley Scott or James Cameron wouldn't have wanted to be on board.

Which every way you cut it; while it might make for a great action trilogy featuring giant transforming robots, it's not the best storytelling out there in terms of TF lore.

All I know I still enjoyed it for what it was, a movie. It's the same as I enjoy Masters of the Universe because it is a movie, but doesn't follow to the T of Heman lore.

Every Joe Blo is not gonna know about all the mythos, and still enjoy it, which is the target of movies, to make people watch them. They don't just target big budget films at a small group of people because they won't make as much money. Saying that, they still had a few nods towards us fans in it. And will still be a successful movie at the box office. Because lets face it, if the first movie had bombed, the Transformers toyline would be close to being dead and wouldn't have the toys we have now and getting in the future.

I'm there to enjoy a movie, and I enjoyed this one more than the last 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowspearer

Yet that's just it. When the best you can say is "it could have been worse" (and I'll see your Shayman and raise you Uwe Boll on that front :p ), or say that you had to lower your expectations to enjoy something, then it's nothing to write home about.

Furthermore if a decent enough treatment had've been in play to begin with then I can't see why the likes of Ridley Scott or James Cameron wouldn't have wanted to be on board.

Which every way you cut it; while it might make for a great action trilogy featuring giant transforming robots, it's not the best storytelling out there in terms of TF lore.

I totally agree with everything you've written, but it's like Azrael said, at the end of the day they aren't making a movie to appeal to us, it's gotta appeal to the entire world and that's why it's not the best storytelling in terms of TF lore.

As far as a great action trilogy goes, I think they hit the nail on the head when it came to the broad audience the movies had to appeal to, and I just think the fandom has been pretty harsh on what has been a really enjoyable 2 movies (pretending RoTF never happened) with a lot of criticism stemming from knowledge that the general public doesn't have. So yeah, I guess I do think that we have to lower our expectations. They're films made for people that don't know the Transformers lore by people who don't know the Transformers lore or have the emotional attachment that we do.

Hopefully after seeing what can be done with the franchise, we'll get somone like James Cameron or Ridley Scott on board for number 4!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Accel

I don't get why G1-fanboys get angry about the movie. I mean its Megatron's master plan and the Ultimate doom :P didn't you want G1 stories! :P

LOLz I just noticed that now you said it. :p

But I don't think it's so much G1 fanboy rantings, (I am personally a Beast Wars girl,:D) as it is general movie-goer annoyance. I really enjoyed the first movie, it got me back into the franchise and I saw it 3 or 4 times... I hadn't done that since the lion king. It did have its short comings, but they were nothing compared to the gobsmacking trash pile that was ROTF. I was willing to forgive though because of the writers strike. As for the third film I left liking it, but wishing it had been more than it was.

What fascinates me about Hollywood is that while every aspect of film making is becoming more flexible and dynamic; with CGI now allowing for limitless story telling potential, the writing is seemingly stagnating in a cesspool of clich�s and generally poor structure.

Over the last few years I have found myself sitting through films with soulless scripts comparable to school level writing. Whats worse is that, along with other move-goers I am starting to accept this low standard as the norm.

I guess what bugged me most about the last two TF movies (and it's certainly not limited to this franchise,) is that I am sick of having to rationalise as to why a multi-billion dollar body like Hollywood, with a global talent pool to select from, continues to churn out mediocre [insert expletive].

:o rant end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Ed

Was Blackout in this movie? I saw Barricade?

Blackout was killed in the first Transformers movie my Lennox and a squadron of F22 Raptors. His body was seen buried at the bottom of the sea. The helicopter Decepticon in Revenge of the Fallen who looks similar (but not identical) to Blackout is Grindor... who was killed by Optimus Prime in the forest when he tore his head apart with his hooks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Ed

What really pisses me off was that this movie hasnt even been out for one day and people start a thread picking it to bits. Its not 1984 and G1 anymore, its 2011 - new time and new generation.

Remakes of movies/old stuff will continue - Just like the upcoming Smurfs and Captain America movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

Here here!! Too many G1 lovers here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Accel

I don't get why G1-fanboys get angry about the movie. I mean its Megatron's master plan and the Ultimate doom :P didn't you want G1 stories! :P

Okay, but to be fair, I haven't seen anyone here nitpick it in terms of comparing it with G1. With the first movie we had some people who did that with comments like "I hate Optimus Prime's chopper flames," "Why isn't Megatron a gun?," "Why isn't Barricade a pink and blue F-1 racer?" etc. -- but I don't recall seeing too many comments here like that. Unless I'm missing comments like, "Why isn't Sentinel Prime more yellow/orange?", "Why isn't Leadfoot an F-1 race car?", "Why isn't Roadbuster an armoured jeep?", "Why isn't Laserbeak a cassette tape?" "Why doesn't Shockwave transform into a space gun?" (oh wait, Shockwave doesn't transform into anything... (-_-)) etc.

The criticisms I've been reading have been about the movie as a Transformers movie in its own right and not necessarily expecting it to be G1. People are allowed to have opinions. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

I didn't see Barricade.

Really? He was definitely there. Particularly when the 'Cons had rounded up the Autobots as POWs and started executing them -- then the humans started shooting at them and Barricade got shot in the eye, allowing Bumblebee and the other Autobot prisoners to fight back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

Didn't like the giant worm and Spaceships hovering over the city.

The worm would've been a whole lot cooler if it were actually a Transformer. Like even if Shockwave transformed into his alt mode and could bore under ground -- even if he's a lot smaller, he could still present a credible threat and I would've preferred it. *sigh* The comics explain that the worm was a creature from Cybertron which Shockwave keeps as a pet... but of course, the movie doesn't give an exposition for this so audiences who haven't read the comics would be left wondering. Shockwave was reduced to the level of "Rancor Keeper." Such a massive downgrade from what he was in G1 (especially in the comics). :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shirokaze

I'm really surprised of the wrap some people are giving the movie, especially since the majority would happily sit and watch re-runs of G1 and the 1986 movie which both had absolutely no plot or character development at all. They were just glorified toy commercials afterall, and the only difference now is that the movie is also a commercial for Lenova, Cisco, Nike, Mercedes, Chevy and Ferrari as well as the toys.

On one hand I agree -- as I've said before, Dark of the Moon does capture the basic spirit of the G1 cartoon well, and arguably offers more plot and development than the G1 'toon. But on the other hand, the G1 comics - which a lot of G1 fans prefer over the cartoon (including myself) - did have pretty decent plot and character development. Better than what we see in the movies.

IMO the movies might have been goodererer if they'd tried to capture the spirit of the comics rather than the cartoon. But on the other hand, while that might please us fans because we have familiarity with the comics, a lot of Joe/Jane Average non-fan movie goers may not be as familiar with the comics and be more familiar with the cartoon.

So on one hand, if the movies are more like the G1 cartoon and ends up being shallow, then people whinge about it, but then if they attempted to match the depth that the G1 comics had, then they would have less familiarity with non-fan audiences. And the success of this movie franchise has been its popularity with the general public and not only fans. When I the movie, I reckon Fonecrusher, mknell, 1AZRAEL1 and I were possibly the only fans in the cinema. Either that, or any other fans in there were really shy -- because from 22:00-23:30 we were playing Transformers Monopoly in the foyer decked out in TF clothes with TF music blasting away, and inside the theatre we played Transformers Trivia, and I did say that anyone could join in and try to answer the questions and that I had prizes to give away, which was true. But I didn't give any away because nobody other than ourselves bothered to participate in the triv game. There _might_ have been other fans in the audience, but my guess would be that most likely there probably weren't. :/ But I digress...

Having said that, just because you're basing a story on the G1 cartoon doesn't mean it can't be well written. And movie writers have MUCH greater freedom than G1 writers because G1 was created as toys first, then the writers had to write stories based on those toys to promote them. Hasbro would dictate which characters needed to be removed or inserted into the story and when. That's why if you look at stories like Transformers The Movie, a lot of characters that were killed or rebuilt were toys that Hasbro no longer wanted to market because they were no longer current (e.g. Brawn, Ironhide, Ratchet, Optimus Prime, Megatron, Thundercracker, Skywarp, Starscream, Wheeljack, Windcharger, the Insecticons etc.) and introduced current/new toys (e.g. Ultra Magnus, Rodimus Prime, Galvatron, Scourge, Cyclonus, Springer, Kup, Blurr etc.) With the live action movies, Paramount makes the story first, then Hasbro has to figure out how to engineer toys based on Dreamworks' designs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

That brings me to "why bots need to have a point". I thought they were soldiers who were there to fight a war. Isn't that the point? Why does everyone need a back story? If ALL the human soldiers had their individual back stories, everyone would be complaining about that.

Like the random mooks in Austin Powers! :D

Okay, not every character needs to be developed, but at least a select core of characters should be - because it's characted development that drives the story. Let's take any of the new characters introduced in Dark of the Moon and describe them without talking about what they look like, what they transform into or what they do in the story. In other words, describe their character.

For example, Sentinel Prime:
Sentinel Prime is a stoic, respected and authoritative figure. Whereas Optimus Prime is driven by an altruistic sense of ethics (selfless concern for the welfare of others), Sentinel Prime is driven by utilitarian morality (the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few), although his utilitarianism is skewed by his belief that Transformers are inherently superior to the expendable fleshlings of Earth whom he believes should worship the Transformers as gods and work as their slaves (thus it could be argued that Sentinel's ethics is based on utilitarianism but diluted with some authoritarianism or totalitarianism (probably the former)). Sentinel Prime does feel inherent loyalty to the Autobot cause, but has had to compromise his standards in making a deal with Megatron and the Decepticons with the ultimate goal of saving Cybertron. So we can see that Sentinel's morality has also been "corrupted" into consequentialism (the ends justify the means) - which is something that the altruistic Optimus Prime refuses to accept (and thus continues to defy his former leader and mentor). Sentinel Prime can be seen as a somewhat tragic or fallen hero -- deep down we can see his utilitarian heart, but it has been "tainted". He may have been Sentinel Prime... but he had become Nemesis Prime.

Okay, now pick ANY of the new characters introduced in Dark of the Moon (robot or human) and describe them without talking about how they look like what they transform into, what they physical capabilities/weaknesses are or what they actually do in the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

But seriously, we're all fans of a toyline about giant robots fighting each other and that's exactly what we got. The comics are there to fuel our fanboy/girl desire for rich back stories, just like the 80s Marvel stuff was there to add an actual story to the G1 cartoon.

The comics came before the cartoon, actually. And being fans of the Transformers doesn't necessarily mean that we are only fans of giant robots fighting each other.

Why do so many fans prefer the G1 comics over the cartoon? Why is Beast Wars so widely respected? Speaking of characters, Dinobot and Waspinator were both voted into Hasbro's TF Hall of Fame (despite attempts at making this year's HoF into a farce with the Erector nomination :mad:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decepticon

I really enjoyed the movie, and so did the 32 friends I filled the Gold Class cinema with last night.

I quite like the movie too - and there are lots of positive things about it (which I've already mentioned before)... and IMO the positives outweigh the negatives (otherwise I wouldn't like the movie! As it is I can't wait to see it again on Saturday! :D). But that's not to say that I'm unaware of some of its flaws.

I mean, I really love the Lord of the Rings trilogy too, but I can also see some of its weaknesses (seriously... WHY did the Elves go to Helm's Deep?! Why the face?! :confused:) </rhetorical.question>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shirokaze

If Bay hadn't had the balls to take on the project, the trilogy might've ended up in the hands of someone truly dreadful like M. Night Shyamalan who I still haven't forgiven for what he did to "The Last Airbender". It could've ended up like Dragon Ball Evolution or Tekken, but it didn't. Just because we can think of stacks of better directors, it doesn't mean that any of them would've wanted to put 5 years into a trilogy about transforming robot kids toys or have even been capable of bringing them to life in such a believable fashion.

True. Michael Bay did bring a lot of good things to the franchise -- he certainly made Transformers VERY popular again in the mainstream. His links with the military has been a big asset... he was the first director who was permitted to film F22 Raptors (arguably the best jet fighter in the world today)! His decision to use low-angle shots has just been awesome because it really made the Transformers look like giant freakin' robots, which they are! But other TF franchises just don't quite give you that same sense of scale. The low angles allows the audience to see the Transformers from a human's POV and remind us that these are really BIG @$$ robots! :eek:

I know some people don't like his fast and furious blurry looking fight sequences, but I do - because:
a: Real fights are fast and furious. If you've ever seen a street brawl (either IRL or on TV/video) they're just all over the place... it's messy.
b: Again, gives sense of scale. Imagine two people having a brawl, but imagine looking at them from an ant's POV. All you would see are giant body parts flying past you in a blurr!

I can't stand the unrealistically "clean" looking fight sequences used in many other movies, especially so-called "martial arts" films. <shudder>

And to give Michael Bay credit, it does seem that he has learnt from some of his mistakes in DotM. For example no more extensive pointless juvenile humour. No robot peeing, no giant janglies, no humping, no drug-jokes. Okay, there's still humour, but even the most juvenile jokes don't drag on. Look at that scene in the toilet cubicle where Wang gets all "close and cosy" and semi-nekkid with Sam... that got big laughs, but not only that, it contributed to the story. Wang was giving Sam vital information so that he could hopefully use it to stop the Decepticons - which was a pretty bold move from him (and he paid the ultimate price). Also, he didn't have silly things happening when important expositions were being presented (e.g. farting a parachute). Overall DotM didn't drag on like RotF did -- I found it far more engaging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1AZRAEL1

Every Joe Blo is not gonna know about all the mythos, and still enjoy it, which is the target of movies, to make people watch them. They don't just target big budget films at a small group of people because they won't make as much money. Saying that, they still had a few nods towards us fans in it. And will still be a successful movie at the box office. Because lets face it, if the first movie had bombed, the Transformers toyline would be close to being dead and wouldn't have the toys we have now and getting in the future.

That's true. 1986's Transformers The Movie was actually a box office failure despite being completely within the TF lore than fans knew -- but while fans may have loved TFTM, non-fans didn't. Even today I don't know how many people who aren't TF fans would enjoy sitting down and watching TFTM. But having said that, it's still no excuse for a poor story (not necessarily saying that the DotM story was poor - I think it was alright - but just saying that it doesn't justify its weaknesses).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shirokaze

I totally agree with everything you've written, but it's like Azrael said, at the end of the day they aren't making a movie to appeal to us, it's gotta appeal to the entire world and that's why it's not the best storytelling in terms of TF lore.

Just because the franchise needs to appeal to the movie going public, doesn't mean that fans ought to lower their standards. Look at X-Men for example... it successfully appealed to both fans and the movie-going public. It maintained a pretty good storyline with substantial development of core characters while still remaining true to the spirit of the X-Men franchise. The Lord of the Rings is another example -- quite a lot of things were changed for the benefit of the general audience e.g. replacing Glorfindel with Arwen and giving her a MUCH more significant role than she originally had! The romance between Aragorn and Arwen is only briefly mentioned/seen in the books, yet it's really prominent in the films because Hollywood audiences like to see romance. But despite this, the LotR trilogy still gave us a really good story with definitive character development (I personally wish they'd left in the Scouring of the Shire - but then some people argue that it would've been a turn off for general audiences who might then see Frodo's entire quest as an act of futility).

Fans should definitely have realistic expectations when adapting a franchise for a general audience, e.g. Wolverine can't wear yellow spandex, Megatron can't be a gun etc., but it doesn't mean we can't expect greatness. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

"Why isn't Barricade a pink and blue F-1 racer?"

Really? You have seen someone complain about that point?:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartrim

Really? You have seen someone complain about that point?:confused:

Nah, I just put that in for giggles. Shows you're paying attention though. Good work! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

Blackout was killed in the first Transformers movie my Lennox and a squadron of F22 Raptors. His body was seen buried at the bottom of the sea. The helicopter Decepticon in Revenge of the Fallen who looks similar (but not identical) to Blackout is Grindor... who was killed by Optimus Prime in the forest when he tore his head apart with his hooks.

That's what I thought.

So why did Hasbro release in a Commander Series, Blackout????