Movie Review - Transformers 4 : Age Of Extinction (spoilers)

[GoktimusPrime]

Fair about about the Drift chopper blade swords. Never thought of it that way, but it makes sense when I think about it. Still... what about the rest of the helicopter?

I was hoping that Galvatron would be a whole new character (much like he was in some G1 sources (toy continuity, Ladybird books, Studio OX etc.) instead of a reincarnated Megatron, but to AoE's credit, they did pull it off better than I expected. But it does feel a bit silly that Megatron's has now died twice and been resurrected twice in the film franchise.

I really like how they've used Welker to voice him, and Welker is using the G1 Megatron voice. As for Welker v. Nimoy, at the time that they created Dark of the Moon, they wouldn't have known that they were going to introduce Galvatron into Age of Extinction. And also keep in mind that Nimoy only voiced Galvatron in TFTM, whereas it was Frank Welker who voiced Galvatron in the G1 TV series. The majority of G1 Galvatron's screen time was actually voiced by Welker.

The fandom do nit pick every little thing. The general population/media poke fun at star wars/trek 'geeks' and with transformers more mainstream since the bay movies I am worried the fandom will simply cause all transformer fans to be labeled in a similar way.

There are some criticisms that some fans make towards the franchise which I think is unreasonable; and I'm talking about the "Ruined Forever!" criticisms which are based around "Because it's different from G1!". I don't buy into those criticisms, and I will defend the Bay movies against those who try to make such comments. For example, a few weeks ago I read a post from a guy heavily criticising Age of Extinction for having Optimus Prime ride Grimlock; claiming that "never in four million years would Grimlock ever let anyone ride him." I replied by posting this image.

But I don't think that it's unreasonable for fans to expect basic standards of cinematic story-telling, because fundamentally that is what movies are meant to be... a story-telling medium. Ultimately it all boils down to the justification that an individual is offering behind why they think the movie is good or bad. e.g.
"I loved Age of Extinction because it was just a great ride of a popcorn action flick!"
"I hated Age of Extinction because the story was just rubbish."
^Two opposite opinions whose rationales I would personally agree with.
There's no such thing as a right or wrong opinion*, but rather on how that opinion is justified. So far, the majority of opinions about Age of Extinction - both positive and negative - seem to have been well formed opinions. But IMO most fans, especially here on OTCA, tend to offer solid opinions.

I think this was my downfall, because without the robot fighting eye-candy, there is no substance or structure.

^So true. A good movie should still tell an excellent story, regardless of the quality of its visual effects. Compare the Original Star Wars Trilogy with the Prequel Star Wars Trilogy; the Prequels have superior visual effects to the Original, yet a lot of fans would argue that the Original is the superior set of movies because they have more character-driven stories, while the Prequels are more caricaturised.


---------------------------------------------------
*Unless the opinion is based on something that is factually incorrect, e.g. asserting that koalas are bears instead of marsupials etc.

[autobreadticon]

Just finished watching it, it was all right in all honestly will the majority go see it twice in cinema , probarly not, will I own it on bluray no. Strong acting performances, good story line, awful dialogue at times , the flow of the movie for the first half of the movie dragged on sometimes,