TLK lands 9 Razzie nominations

[Magnus]

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

And that's the best thing you can do to silence your critics -- by making a good movie!

I'll have to take exception to this sentiment. When people say 'they should just make better movies', it implies two things:

1. That there is some simplicity to making good movies that people in the industry with their years of experience somehow miss. If it's really so simple, why don't these armchair critics make movies themselves? Trev nailed it - it's far easier to criticise work than to make it yourself.

2. That people who are making movies are not trying to make them good or aren't putting in effort. With multimilliondollar budgets at stake, Paramount would be trying to make the movie as good as they could. Cast and crew on Michael Bay's movies have consistently described him as hard-working.

The impression I get of Michael Bay is that he doesn't care about critical acclaim. He doesn't make Oscar bait. As far as he's concerned, moviegoing audiences are his critics. For some reason or other, it's popular to hate on his work, which is why he keeps getting Razzie nominations.

Edit: sorry if the post came across as harsh, but I find that "they should make better movies" statement irksome.

[GoktimusPrime]

Example: When Beast Wars first came out there was widespread negativity from the fandom. TRUKK NOT MUNKEE! RUINED FOREVER! KILLED MY CHILDHOOD! etc. etc.
Online arguments raged※! But BW soon silenced its critics with its quality toys and TV series etc.

Yes, you're right in that it is easier to criticise, but that alone doesn't make the criticisms necessarily invalid. After all, most of the population are unfit to govern but does that make us unfit to criticise our politicians? Criticism is fine as long as it's constructive and not unproductive criticism. Saying that Bayformers needs to have better stories that focuses more on the Transformers and treats them as characters instead of set pieces is not an invalid or unproductive criticism. I think it's perfectly reasonable. Saying, "Because it's different from G1" is not what I consider a valid form of criticism. After all, Ghost in the Shell was visually extremely accurate to its source material and that still managed to be a widely panned film. And in all honesty, a live action movie that's too G1 accurate wouldn't be very good. The robots would visually look like TV Power Rangers Zords and a disabled dude ripping up a floppy disk with his bare hands? Really?

I think that criticism is fine as long as it's fair and reasonable criticism. But the same goes with praise and accolade. Praising stuff without validity is just as meaningless. This is why I don't watch video toy reviews -- a lot of them lavish praise on the toys without proper justification. e.g. "POTP Optimus Prime is AWESOME!" and spends the rest of video showing off that toy but without once telling the audience why s/he thinks that the toy is awesome. That's not a review, that's a showcase! I think that POTP OP is a great toy, but I also tell people why I think it's good, and I do also address the weaknesses on that toy too (but I think that there are no unjustifiable weaknesses on the toy which is what overall makes it great). Or conversely, I found POTP Grimlock to be a rather disappointing toy, and I'll explain why (I think it's a toy that's very much compromised by having to be a gestalt torso, but admittedly the gestalt robot has zero appeal to me).

It's just like what I teach my senior students - you can agree or disagree with the statement in a question. When I mark their responses I gauge it according to how they've justified their response and not if I happen to agree with it or not. Many times I award higher marks to students whose opinion I personally disagree with, but they presented a better argument than other students who I personally agree with. The marking criteria never says, "Candidate agrees with the marker."

---------------------------------------------------
※Maybe these arguments haven't stuck in your mind as much as mid-90s internet discussions were generally more civilised. Aaah, remember what the internet was like before AOL?

[shockNwave]

Originally Posted by DELTAprime

Well um, as someone that really dislikes many aspects of the Bayverse (mostly around acting, script and directing) I'm not at all surprised by this. TLK has landed 9 Razzie nominations this year.

The Razzies are awarded for the worst movies of the year, as opposed to most awards ceremonies that award the best movies.

https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/22/16...rs-last-knight

May TLK get all the Razzies that are coming to it. Mr. Bay has done little to rectify the fiasco that truly started with AOE. The completist in me will not buy TLK and if he does he'll say to the worker across the counter, " Could you please put that in a brown paper bag. " or " Oh it's not for me, it's for a friend. "

Originally Posted by DELTAprime

Well um, as someone that really dislikes many aspects of the Bayverse (mostly around acting, script and directing) I'm not at all surprised by this. TLK has landed 9 Razzie nominations this year.

That's just it, Michael Bay's movies are typically incredibly light on substance whilst being incredibly high on style.

If Michael Bay's movie-making method were a mathematical formula, it would typically be:

Hot women+car chase set pieces+low-brow jokes+explosions = runaway box office financial success.

Michael Bay movies are typically movies where you go if you want the film equivalent of a roller coaster ride - no intellectual substance but alot of adrenaline-pumping action.

Look at the number of Transformers fans who said that if you just switch off your brain (yes, I remember those exact words being used on more than one occasion and by more than one person) you'll enjoy them.

The problem is, as the current declining state of play has proved with AOE and TLK, and as the writers strike proved with ROTF, is that after a while, the hype and excitement wears off and becomes stale, or if it's poorly executed, people see how little there is there.

When Michael Bay was signed on and his approach to film-making became the one which drove these films, this situation was always going to be a matter of "when", rather than "if".

Originally Posted by Tetsuwan Convoy

How do they think that the worst actor can be the same actor from two different movies?

I suspect they are unlikely to be THAT bad in two movies.

That list is awful

It's not the first time it happened note this fun fact about the 2015 Razzies:

Kelsey Grammer in The Expendables 3, Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return (voice only), Think Like a Man Too and Transformers: Age of Extinction as Bonaparte, Tin Man, Lee Fox, and Harold Attinger[7]

Sure, you could argue that it's spite, but it could also be a string of poor career choices, or blatantly obvious, cash-grabbing phone-ins. Either is going to be treated mercilessly by the Razzies.

Originally Posted by Magnus

2. That people who are making movies are not trying to make them good or aren't putting in effort. With multimilliondollar budgets at stake, Paramount would be trying to make the movie as good as they could. Cast and crew on Michael Bay's movies have consistently described him as hard-working.

Wrong, what Paramount and other movie studios are trying to do, is make movies which will make them the biggest box office return for their investment. As AOE, in making over a billion dollars, whilst earning 7 Razzie nominations, proves, an incredibly financially successful movie, and a good quality movie, aren't necessarily the same thing and can even be worlds apart from one another.

[DELTAprime]

Well I guess there was a bigger steaming pile of cinematic garbage this year.

TLK won a big fat 0 Razzies.

http://news.tfw2005.com/2018/03/02/t...ds-2018-360330

Congrats to The Emoji Movie I guess???

[Autocon]

Originally Posted by DELTAprime

Well I guess there was a bigger steaming pile of cinematic garbage this year.

TLK won a big fat 0 Razzies.

http://news.tfw2005.com/2018/03/02/t...ds-2018-360330

Congrats to The Emoji Movie I guess???

But tlk was worse than emoji movie!

[Smint]

The "why don't you do better" defence is a classic.

[shockNwave]

Originally Posted by DELTAprime

Well I guess there was a bigger steaming pile of cinematic garbage this year.

TLK won a big fat 0 Razzies.

http://news.tfw2005.com/2018/03/02/t...ds-2018-360330

Congrats to The Emoji Movie I guess???

Oh dear. I guess Michael Bay will be breathing a sigh of relief after this result.
I am not happy about this result. Not one bit!

[BigTransformerTrev]

Originally Posted by shockNwave

Oh dear. I guess Michael Bay will be breathing a sigh of relief after this result.
I am not happy about this result. Not one bit!

Well I admit, I didn't see any of the movies that beat TF5 for their Razzie nominations so I'm not in a place to say with any finality that the likes of The Emoji Movie, Fifty Shades Darker etc were indeed worse films.

However as a hardcore TF fan, I personally find it's nice to think that a movie that has the likes of Optimus, Megatron and Grimlock in it, is not thought by the public to be the worst film in all those categories.

Out of interest, why does this result anger you so? Had you seen those other movies and thought TF5 was worse? Or did you want the Razzies to punish Michael Bay specifically? Just surprised by the vehemency of your reaction so wondering from whence the anger stems.

[tinyJazz]

Originally Posted by shockNwave

Oh dear. I guess Michael Bay will be breathing a sigh of relief after this result.
I am not happy about this result. Not one bit!

Last Knight was robbed!! All their razzie noms were deserved, sad they didn’t win this year!