|
More Than Meets the Eye
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Lessail posted:More Than Meets the Eye Robots in Disguise = Things morph into giant scorpions and dinosaurs
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then what is your point I don't know about BSS but yes, comic books in general are a wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Go look at the inspiring/emotional moments in comics thread to see just how bad comic book storytelling really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
I don't think there's actually an argument here. We're using two sets of criteria to judge this movie. There are two ways you can watch it. 1) You go in expecting a good story, with engaging characters speaking believable dialogue, and a compelling plot, and directing and special effects that are impressive without being distracting. Because it's a summer action film, you might set your expectations a little lower for character and plot, and hope for clear and exciting action scenes. All of these are reasonable expectations. Most films try to include these things, whether or not they're successful. But there is not a single film in the Transformers franchise does any of that stuff. (Maybe the cartoon one with Unicron, I haven't seen it.) If you go in expecting a good and fun movie, even with lowered expectations for a brainless summer blockbuster, you will leave the theater bored and annoyed. You'll hate the film, and be completely justified in doing so. 2) But there's more than one way to watch movies. You don't go into either Tommy Wiseau's The Room or David Lynch's Eraserhead, for example, expecting a good story. Now, one of these films tried to be a serious drama and failed, and the other was deliberately surreal and dreamlike without a coherent plot. But in both cases you have to adjust your expectations in order to get anything out of the experience. So instead you go into Transformer expecting satire, and you constantly think critically about the characters and plot as you're watching. What you get then is a brazenly nihilistic controlled detonation of American culture and values, which starts with a cast of inept heroes and hilariously sociopathic robots, and gradually degenerates into a terrifying adolescent fever dream of t&a and explosions and racism and giant killer toys. It's horrifying and exhilarating and exhausting. I saw this with my dad, and on the way there I tried to explain some of the ideas I'd read in this thread. He kept rolling his eyes, and at one point jokingly threatened to walk out of the theater. But halfway through, during the infamous Bud Light truck scene, he turned to me and said "you were right." And we spent the rest of the film pointing out the absurdity, and laughing along with it. We had a blast. Who cares whether the satire in Transformers is deliberate or accidental? Bay could be Lynch with explosions or Tommy Wiseau with a budget. But if his movie is more entertaining to watch as satire, then I'm going to treat it like satire, damnit. Even if you think this whole thread is nonsense and film theory wanking, I've found it offers a much more rewarding (and fun) interpretation of these movies. Indie Rocktopus fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Going into this with Terry's analysis firmly in mind I giggled in pleasure when the baddies face broke apart to reveal a giant gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:Even if you think this whole thread is nonsense and film theory wanking, I've found it offers a much more rewarding (and fun) interpretation of these movies. If you have to pretend the good guys are the bad guys to enjoy it, then maybe it's just not a very good film?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Kempo posted:If you have to pretend the good guys are the bad guys to enjoy it, then maybe it's just not a very good film?  it's not really "pretending" to identify a character who says "freedom is the right of all sentient creatures" as he rips someone apart with his hands as a violent hypocrite AKA a bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:
So every good guy that violent kills a bad guy is also a bad guy. This changes probably every film I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
There are no "good guys" in these Transformers films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
I like how everyone states this as an absolute fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Kempo posted:I like how everyone states this as an absolute fact. When you say that we're "pretending the good guys are the bad guys" you're treating those assumptions of which side is actually good or actually bad as if they're facts. But the protagonists of these films don't have to be seen as "good guys" any more than the protagonists of Bay's previous film Pain & Gain. My comments are based on interpreting the films. What are your assumptions based on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Kempo posted:If you have to pretend the good guys are the bad guys to enjoy it, then maybe it's just not a very good film? Kempo posted:I like how everyone states this as an absolute fact. HMMMMMM
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Kempo posted:So every good guy that violent kills a bad guy is also a bad guy. Do they do it particularly brutally and sadistically, while saying things about their faces and disfiguring their bodies? Then yes! Yes he is. I think a big reason Terry's analysis hits is because of how weirdly violent and cruel the Autobots, Optimus specifically, are. Watching a childhood hero say "We will kill them all" is a bizarre experience for most people!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
That's my point, I will happily state as fact that they are the good guys, because that's the only scenario that, IMHO, is not completely loving mental. Edit: also I googled it. Kempo fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Do they do it particularly brutally and sadistically, while saying things about their faces and disfiguring their bodies? Isn't every robot death in these films brutal by necessity, as they're not particularly easy to kill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Kempo posted:Isn't every robot death in these films brutal by necessity, as they're not particularly easy to kill? In the first film, the ease and efficiency with which the American military dispatch Scorponok via high-altitude gunship is hugely contrasted with Optimus tearing Bonecrusher's entire skull off after slicing him into ribbons with his sword arms in the middle of a busy freeway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
3 posted:In the first film, the ease and efficiency with which the American military dispatch Scorponok via high-altitude gunship is hugely contrasted with Optimus tearing Bonecrusher's entire skull off after slicing him into ribbons with his sword arms in the middle of a busy freeway. Didn't Scorponok scuttle away after that scene or was that earlier? Also if Optimus Prime could've flown above Bonecrusher and just shot at him from the sky I imagine he would've. I don't know what else the character should've done in the situation? Kempo fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Scorponok is in fact not killed by the military gunship: he is forced to withdraw. It takes quite a bit of damage to kill Transformers in these movies. Recall that he reappears in the finale of the second film, at which point Jetfire kills him.Indie Rocktopus posted:I don't think there's actually an argument here. The problem with this is that your assessment can't possibly be true given that the films are so tremendously successful. Most people are not paying ever-increasing movie ticket prices to watch blockbuster films in the theater ironically or with the intent of subversively arguing that the film's "good" protagonists are actually antagonists or "not good." People pay premiums to watch blockbuster movies for spectacle, since summer action films succeed or fail based on their ability to be spectacular. Despite near-universal seething disdain both critically as well as by hardcore Transformers fans, these Transformers films have been massively, massively successful. We can therefore conclude that lots and lots of people do legitimately enjoy these movies, even though they are not people likely to write reviews or discuss films online. Because of Transformers specifically, Michael Bay is now the 2nd highest grossing director of all time, and the guy occupying the number one is his executive producer. Success of that sheer magnitude over such an extended period of time--it's been seven years now of these movies--is not something that happens due to advertising hype (maybe for a first movie, but not for a fourth) or people "hate-watching" (too few in number). That kind of success can only come when a substantial amount of people believe that the caliber of action spectacle on display in these movies is simply at a scale and fidelity that surpasses even other blockbuster action pictures. People are going in expecting "a good and fun movie" and having those expectations not only met, but exceeded to the point that they not only buy the films on home video in an age where Netflix/Redbox are the default choices, but come back for the sequels. It is lazy thinking to write the reason for this off with something dismissive like "well, I guess the masses are asses who'll consume any crap put in front of them," "I guess people just don't know what actual competent film making is," or the ever-popular-in-this-thread "wow, they must accept everything at full face value, no questions asked." We need to actually accept the possibility that lots of people genuinely believe the title of this thread to be true such that--per your terms--they do indeed honestly like the story, the characters, the dialogue, the directing, the music, the special effects, the cinematography, and the action scenes. I happen to be one of these people. Daryl Surat fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Do they do it particularly brutally and sadistically, while saying things about their faces and disfiguring their bodies? Many people have ended up hating the new films because they cling to the framing of "Autobots must be the good guys". This view is possible with the characters from the old cartoons and comics, but obviously doesn't work with Bay's films. Everyone who possesses an ounce of sense should reject Sam/Optimus (and Cade from the sounds of it, but I haven't seen the 4th one yet) on political or even moral grounds. Yet this doesn't mean the viewer can't also enjoy the story - you don't have to root for the anti-hero to be interested in their tale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Kempo posted:Didn't Scorponok scuttle away after that scene or was that earlier? Remember, the Autobots all have long-range weaponry, probably of higher quality and power than anything the backward Earthlings can field. Again, we can contrast the instance in the second film where the colossal Devastator is brought down with near-surgical precision with a couple of well-placed shots from an offshore railgun. Meanwhile, Optimus Prime puts on the corpse of Jetfire (which is loaded with guns), just so he can fly up to and mutilate the Fallen. Now, I haven't watched the films in a while, so my memory may be escaping me, but I can't actually remember a scene where Optimus ever uses his gun at any range other than extreme close quarters; there seems to be a deliberate disconnect between the clinical military power of the humans and the extremely intimate and ferocious combat between Cybertronians. EDIT: I just checked, and you're right about the Scorponok thing, though. Whoops! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Optimus has had limbs pulled off, been shot repeatedly with all sorts of things and impaled with a big sword and not died, they are pretty hard to kill (unless maybe there's a whole gang shooting at a target at once).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Daryl Surat posted:The problem with this is that your assessment can't possibly be true given that the films are so tremendously successful. Most people are not paying ever-increasing movie ticket prices to watch blockbuster films in the theater ironically or with the intent of subversively arguing that the film's "good" protagonists are actually antagonists or "not good." People pay premiums to watch blockbuster movies for spectacle, since summer action films succeed or fail based on their ability to be spectacular. Despite near-universal seething disdain both critically as well as by hardcore Transformers fans, these Transformers films have been massively, massively successful. We can therefore conclude that lots and lots of people do legitimately enjoy these movies, even though they are not people likely to write reviews or discuss films online. People in this thread are attempting to interpet the films, not guess at what most other people think about them. Anyway, people can enjoy the films as spectacle without thinking through them "ironically or subversively" (not the words for it I would choose) and still not actually agree with the actions or beliefs of the protagonists. Just like as a kid I could watch Bugs Bunny and laugh at him, I still knew he was being an obnoxious poo poo yet that didn't make me a "subversive" kid. EDIT- You are correct, though, that Indie Rocktopus' two types of viewers can't possibly encompass the bulk of the audience. quote:We need to actually accept the possibility that lots of people genuinely believe the title of this thread to be true such that--per your terms--they do indeed honestly like the story, the characters, the dialogue, the directing, the music, the special effects, the cinematography, and the action scenes. I happen to be one of these people. I honestly like the films, same as you. I also honestly interpret the Autobots as bad guys (along with pretty much every other character). I don't see a contradiction there, or why the latter has to be as elitist as you seem to think. It has nothing to do with "hate-watching", just like its not hate-watching to see Patrick Bateman as a bad person in American Psycho. EDIT - I see I missed a bit of the context of your post, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on what I've said. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
For me, the violence in itself isn't really the sticking point. Our culture is shockingly OK with even morbid human-on-human violence, and evaluating characters on whether they treat their enemies with basic decency leaves very few actual good people in media nowadays. Transformers is not unique in this, it just reflects the trend. (It's actually something that makes me unable to enjoy a lot of films.) Where I feel the trilogy differs is in the subtler things, the way it communicates this violence. Like in the basic camerawork. Optimus is just not shot the way you'd shoot a heroic character. In movies 2 and 3, he's consistently portrayed as this overbearing, terrible presence whose form alone cuts into the very picture and makes all competition shrink and vanish. He's not a Conanesque brute, he very deliberately lies and manipulates people onto his side: A lot of his narration turns out to be blatantly untrue, right down to the very core premise of the ongoing war between Autobots and Decepticons (Autobots lost a long time ago, but it's not like Sam needs to know that, right?). He's a propagandistic figure, and it's in his control of the narrative that the real violence lies. It's not as simple as "bad guy good good guy bad", because that would be just as rote and uninteresting as the standard option. It's worth keeping in mind that Megatron is still very justifiably a villain, continuously letting unpleasant fellows like the Fallen and Sentinel boss him around and killing people just to let off steam or try to assert his nonexistant masculinity. That's the idea behind his big scene at the end of movie 3, where he realises where he's been going wrong and goes out to set things right - and promptly fails. The "good ending" to the trilogy would be Megatron forgiving/reconciling with humanity and working with them to save Cybertron rather than against them, but his own flaws combined with Optimus' sabotage continuously prevent this from happening. They're both interesting and nuanced characters with an arc. It's good writing, conveyed through beautiful cinematography in a deceptively complex story. That's why I enjoy the films. And yet neither my reading nor my enjoyment of the films undo their numerous and very real, often crippling flaws. I really don't want this thread to descend into the usual CineD slapfight of "you're watching the movie wrong" "no you're watching the movie wrong!" The neat thing about films is that you can have these different takes on the same material, and compare and discuss them. I could reject the trilogy wholesale, but with a slight shift in perspective, it becomes pretty fun - and isn't that what movies are about? Enjoying yourself? I'd rather be wrong and deluded in enjoying a thing and the community around it than "right" and cynical and disappointed in everyone around me, and I suspect most of the people continually going to watch the films think similarly - regardless of whether they think of the Autobots as just heroes or crazy psychopaths. Daryl Surat posted:We need to actually accept the possibility that lots of people genuinely believe the title of this thread to be true such that--per your terms--they do indeed honestly like the story, the characters, the dialogue, the directing, the music, the special effects, the cinematography, and the action scenes. I happen to be one of these people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What's a series where you actually could come in on the fourth consecutive film (like, not including reboots or whatever) and reasonably expect to understand the bulk of what's going on? I think the 4th Pirates of the Caribbean film fits this description but it's intentionally separate from the other films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Terry, I know you love the concept art for these films, so for after you see the new one here is some of its art: http://imgur.com/a/CdEYP Edit - More: http://imgur.com/a/M49rH Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
I'm actually with Daryl. I do, on some level, honestly enjoy the bizarre characters, the dialogue, how everyone frequently yells and shouts over each other and every one is so over the top and, yes, of course the race guy car pulls out a card showing that everything's legal and of course Cade and Optimus have daddy bonding time. These films are blockbusters distilled down to their elements. And the soundtracks? Is there any TF film that Jablonsky hasn't knocked out of the park? One thing to comment on. Transformers aren't that hard to kill, you just have to aim for the right point. The only areas you need to hit are the head - or, as Lockdown so clearly demonstrates on Ratchet, you just need to get at their spark. That's why it's so odd that the Autobots don't do this and instead prefer to mutilate and dismember.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:14
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Terry, I know you love the concept art for these films, so for after you see the new one here is some of its art: And also these: http://bulgarov.com/transformers4_main.html
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:You're a pretty bad troll, HTH. I actually skipped the first 30 or so pages of the thread because I wanted to talk about my experience watching Transformers 4. Sorry if this really bothers you, I'm sure she put plenty of effort into it and is probably an engaging read for people who enjoy that interpretation. Maybe if I had actually enjoyed this film I'd even go read it myself, but I didn't, so I wont. I also do not think that effort or pagecount directly correlates with quality, nor do I think it should be required reading to criticize a movie you just watched. Tuxedo Catfish posted:I don't know about BSS but yes, comic books in general are a wasteland. I know that most comics are bad (and that sales outside Marvel are stagnating). My point was focused on BSS itself, that the idea that someone isn't allowed to complain about a movies flaws if they haven't checked previous movies for the same flaws (even though that same person then says that this doesn't suddenly justify those flaws anyways) becomes incredibly absurd when applied to comics (which can have decades worth of backstory and characters), or say, long-running television shows. Indie Rocktopus posted:I don't think there's actually an argument here. For the record, for all my chiding, I have nothing against reading into movies. My problems with specific movie-focused CineD threads stem entirely from movie-focused CineD threads and their posters in particular (I am not talking of any specific poster right now, except probably that dude who's quote I'm going to use later down this post); mainly, how they will latch onto the longest subjective reading a resident effortposter provides, and then shout down any negative reading suggesting the contrary (while at the same time weaseling out of criticisms themselves), usually a face-value criticism of said movie. Which makes contributing to a CineD thread without agreeing with the reading chosen increasingly tiresome. Without getting too blowhardy, here's a quote from last page: quote:where he's still propagating -and building the rest there on- that same old meme/caricature of Bay. Part of what made Terry's analysis and the discussions branching off of it so refreshing was we were able to get away from that BS. Why does he assume his reading holds true knowledge over Michael Bay's intentions and personality that the writer of that article does not? How does he not know that the writer put in his own excessive amount of studying of Michael Bay and his movies, and still came with that conclusion (and omitted the study due to how common that opinion of Michael Bay is anyways)? Why is his opinion of Michael Bay Bullshit, but not Terry's opinion of Michael Bay? It's because that's the reading he's chosen as the one truth, which is absurd. The Prometheus thread had this problem as well. There's also when a poster complained about the advertising in the movie and how he disliked it, and he was questioned because in the chosen opinion of the thread, that advertising is a good thing in service of the movies secret message. I don't think that there's anything wrong with finding a movie enjoyable for unconventional reasons due to your own personal interpretations brought about via DotA. I do, however, have a problem with shouting down other opinions because they violate your canon headspace. quote:so far you have argued that this interpretation was invalid because you didn't like some stuff in the movie, and that everybody else in the thread is just jerking off. I internally consider her interpretation invalid because I do not care about her interpretation, this is all the reason I need to ignore a subjective interpretation of an artform and provide my own opinion on said artform (and the person reading this opinion is free to subtract or add Truth Points to my opinion as a result). I understand that this is a bit harsh in a thread started due to said interpretation, but there isn't another CineD Transformers thread, so be it. quote:When you respond to this, I will either be in bed or watching the first three movies in a row tomorrow. But I am entirely open to another perspective, So long as it is not the "wrong" perspective. I might actually write up my own full-form opinion of the movie because I do think it is interesting how close it gets to being "good" in my personal opinion. Here's a short-form opinion until then: The beginning had decent setup and introduced interesting plot hooks and character aspects, the second part did nothing with those. Not-Steve-Jobs was an obnoxiously evil character and I have no idea why they just carry him around after getting ahold of the bomb (besides the obvious "well, we have Tucci, what are we going to do with him now that he doesn't have employees to shout at in the script"), and his regular whinging makes him far less sympathetic than the stone-faced CIA agent dealing with giant CGI black robots. There's a lot of scenes that don't seem to go anywhere (which is apparently a common thing in these movies, but is nonetheless a bad thing in my eyes), and it just feels like they glued the first half of a good movie with the second half of a bad movie and called it a day. Also the animal robot designs were really unmemorable. Giant bits of shiny-black/silver metal that sort of form a T-Rex. I really didn't like the CGI in this movie in general too; it feels like they assume the CGI is more convincing than it actually is, which leads to Crystal Skull Jeep Chase/All of Star Wars Prequels moments where everything looks too fake for you to actually care about (again, in the latter half of the movie). Adding to that with my own personal opinion of the designs of -all- the robots I've seen from these movies, I just don't think they're very memorable or unique compared to the original cartoons/toys designs (and I feel that those original, blocky designs would have transferred more convincingly into CGI, especially seeing as the toys actually had to be able to realistically transform between modes, instead of CGI splintering into them). This is in no way nostalgia (esp. seeing as I did not grow up with transformers, never saw any of the cartoons outside of their robot designs, and never owned any of the toys themselves [outside of some black and purple pterodactyl robot, he was cool]), I just think they would have turned out better. Drift and the fat bearded robots managed to actually look memorable and interesting in the new-transformers designs though, so props to that. I didn't care much for Optimus Prime, but at the same time his design was vibrant and unique enough that it was easy to keep track of him throughout the film, so cheers to that as well. e: I missed this quote from before: quote:What's a series where you actually could come in on the fourth consecutive film (like, not including reboots or whatever) and reasonably expect to understand the bulk of what's going on? I've actually gotten into Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings, and many, many other film series via later releases. I am actually very forgiving when it comes to story hooks or characters that have already endeared themselves to the audiences since I am well-aware that I am out of the loop. I still do not like Age of Extinction. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Terry van Feleday posted:Out of curiousity, what is it specifically you enjoy? I'm always interested to hear. You know how when everyone lays out "this element of the films is bad for the following reasons"? Those same reasons are why I think said element is good. Like, it's literally the same evidence only they conclude "and that's why it sucks" and I conclude "and that's why it's great." The reason the action scenes are something I applaud and the heroes are so enjoyable to watch is precisely BECAUSE the violence is so incredibly graphic and the kills so viciously inflicted upon targets which warrant no sympathy. This is precisely what I always wanted the Autobots to have been doing since I was 4 years old. The promise of the original cartoon, "Autobots wage their battle to destroy the evil forces of the Decepticons," was never something that could be delivered upon until now. Personality-wise, the Transformers always represented archetypes so I'm perfectly fine that the human characters follow suit. Heck, I've watched plenty of kung-fu action over the years where such a thing is so expected that practically everyone's a character actor. The bits presented as humor by and large succeed in entertaining me, be it Sam's freakouts, his parents, everything Agent Simmons does, and things in the new movie which I'll omit since you still haven't gotten to see it yet. I actively want that along with the carnage, and with ticket prices being what they are I'm perfectly fine with getting 2.5-3 hours of it at a time every few years. I love when movies visually convey in one sequence everything you need to know about a character's personality. The first shot we see of Liam Neeson in Taken was him sitting alone in an apartment with a solitary Chinese takeout container on the coffee table as he meticulously gift-wraps a box. That is all anyone needs to see to discern "he's a single overbearing dad." The Transformers films can do this quite well, whether it's a smug college professor, the "Narutard" roommate, or...the single overbearing dad. I appreciate the efficiency of it as it leaves time for the more vital plot elements of an action film, namely presenting the villains as dangerous such that you wonder "how are the heroes going to beat this?" as you build up desire to see them utterly trashed. (Age of Extinction does the best job in this regard.) The crimes of the Decepticons are so great in these movies that plain ol' dying's just too good for them: rip out that fucker's spine in slow motion from the tail end instead of the head, Bumblebee! You see, Mr. Plinkett was wrong about why light-saber fights are intriguing: choreography and integration with score/foley are what I respect and focus in on with full attention. The particulars of why are secondary compared to the breakdown: how does one move lead to the next, how is that part of the environment used, how will this character continue fighting with the damage they've sustained, and so on. This bit from the forest fight in Revenge of the Fallen leaves me positively euphoric as Optimus Prime systematically dismantles/temporarily neutralizes each foe to disrupt the next. It ends with him tearing off Starscream's arm and then beating him with it before he leaps onto Grindor and tears his head in half. The score is dead-on as well; I always preferred the leitmotif approach to film scoring as used by John Williams and Hans Zimmer, and Steve Jablonsky's score for these films operates along similar lines. Just hearing bits takes me back to that precise moment in the movie. A lot of people are down on the idea of "the music being intrusive/telling me how I should feel" but that's what's needed for it to stay with me. The forest fight itself was unique since the Transformers films aren't content to keep doing the same exact fight scene, but thanks to how they put everything together we keep getting comparable moments like it, and due to the need to top what you've grown accustomed to seeing they're usually FAR more complex. By the end of Dark of the Moon Optimus kills Shockwave with a glorious punch/eye rip combo, which deactivates the pillar and forces Sentinel to fight him in downtown Chicago while simultaneously contending with other Autobots as well as human military. This sort of spectacle is quite tricky to choreograph and film because so many elements are simultaneously in play. We make fun of when heroes in films are attacked "black ninja" style, but the truth is that finding visually appealing ways to show one:many or many:many conflicts that don't end in "a mass of foes charge and dogpile" is something most action directors don't want to deal with. I love the Marvel movies, but rarely do they even attempt this type of action scene, opting instead to mostly intercut between multiple scenes (Cap does this, Widow does that, Falcon is elsewhere). You actually summed up my position yourself, though you were specifically referencing how the films conclude: "it's just so... Joyful. There’s so much detail, such elegant motion, the sound design and pacing are flawless." Daryl Surat fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Daryl Surat, you should watch the show Superjail if you have not already.Neurolimal posted:Why does [Lord Krangdar] assume his reading holds true knowledge over Michael Bay's intentions and personality that the writer of that article does not? How does he not know that the writer put in his own excessive amount of studying of Michael Bay and his movies, and still came with that conclusion (and omitted the study due to how common that opinion of Michael Bay is anyways)? Why is his opinion of Michael Bay Bullshit, but not Terry's opinion of Michael Bay? It's because that's the reading he's chosen as the one truth, which is absurd. The Prometheus thread had this problem as well. I don't know Michael Bay's intentions or personality. Which is why my goal is mainly to interpret the films, not to guess at those things about Bay. You don't have to read all 30 pages of this thread, let alone the whole other one this one continues from, but please at least get enough context for the current conversations so we don't have to go through the whole "death of the author" rigmarole that ends up bogging down every drat thread here. I think I can reasonably conclude that the description of Bay given in that article is a cartoonish exaggeration. Not because I know the guy, but because the description is so cartoonish and exaggerated. You really I'm overstepping by not taking the idea of Bay "staying up at night banging hookers on the hoods of solid gold sports cars filled with cocaine" seriously? I'm supposed to consider that as an actual conclusion of the writer studing Michael Bay? You don't have to agree with anyone else's opinion here. Even those of us who agree with the primary ideas of the reading that began this thread (like the Autobots being bad guys, for example) disagree on many other aspects. I really disagree with Terry when she says RotF is most reprehensible and least meaningful one of the films, for example, but that's fine and in the last thread we had some good discussions about it. If you're going to criticize other people's interpretations, though, it would be nice if you responded to what others have actually said instead of putting your own sarcastic or distorted versions in our mouths (all that about secret messages and canon headspaces, and so on). At the very least understand the most basic idea that not everything is about trying to guess Bay's intentions. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
The 'lol Michael Bay is a crazy idiot manchild' is odd because if you go and, y'know, actually read something like that bunch of interviews about him that was posted a few weeks back, you can clearly see that he seems to be more of a overly serious guy who exerts a high level of control over his creations which some might call 'obsessive', given that he was apparently obsessed with train sets when he was younger. This is the guy who, when asked if there was a certain type of robot as a facetious question, turned around and said, seriously: "There isn't one." I'll also add to what Daryl said. It's not just the sheer choreography of the fights but the fact that the characters are simple enough and set up just enough (Lockdown bad! Lockdown strong! Lockdown killed Ratchet and beat Prime before!) that the fights are entertaining. The people sitting next to me gasped when Prime shot Attinger and then gasped again when Lockdown kicked him down and ran him through with his own sword. You could feel the tension when Lockdown shouted out: "This is my fight! And you're all going to die!" And, sure, you look at that line and you go 'haha, really? That's a line in a film in the year 2014?' but the acting and the direction and the camera and the music and the plot all works in the service of selling it. For whatever reason, these films are really, really good at squeezing certain parts of the brain even when you know that, all in all, the films aren't particularly good. They suck you in and give you two and a bit hours of adrenaline without winking at the audience or cringing at the subject matter (Hello, Man of Steel) or trying to dress it up as a morality or cautionary tale. You have to respect a film that sets out to do a certain thing and absolutely nails it. You don't write every work with the same audience in mind or the same intention behind it and so, while the Transformer films might not be good in the conventionally artistic or critical sense, they are absolutely what they set out to be and they absolutely give an amazing window into mass entertainment is in the Twenty-First century. That, in my mind, makes them worthy of discussion. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:For whatever reason, these films are really, really good at squeezing certain parts of the brain even when you know that, all in all, the films aren't particularly good. They suck you in and give you two and a bit hours of adrenaline without winking at the audience or cringing at the subject matter (Hello, Man of Steel) or trying to dress it up as a morality or cautionary tale. You have to respect a film that sets out to do a certain thing and absolutely nails it. You don't write every work with the same audience in mind or the same intention behind it and so, while the Transformer films might not be good in the conventionally artistic or critical sense, they are absolutely what they set out to be and they absolutely give an amazing window into mass entertainment is in the Twenty-First century. That, in my mind, makes them worthy of discussion. As much as I dislike the movie I can't in all honestly disagree with (most of) this. Michael Bay is very good at directing action scenes, and that particular one singlehandedly manages to sell Lockdown (new grumpy black robot that frowns a lot and has a big ship) as a real threat. It's just a shame about the rest. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Yeah and, all in all, I'll agree with you on that, Neurolimal. Age of Extinction's climax wasn't nearly as great as I expected it to be, given that every TF film has had a better and better one than the one before it. A lot of the film goes to complete pieces when they shift to Hong Kong and I'd rather they hadn't done it - but, at the same time, it's just what happened and I don't generally like to talk films in the sense of what they 'should have' been. The first half of the film was probably the best Transformers cinematic media to date. But, for example, one of the most jarring things is how Stinger and Galvatron are enough to handle the Bots and Prime all by themselves, but the Human-built Transformers are suddenly worthless garbage in the climax and Galvatron ambles around waiting for the next sequel. Some of the climax is just unfortunate and some of it, like the Autobots transforming and shouting that they need to hold the bridge despite there seeming to be any enemies pursuing them is just what the films do. Because, at the time, everyone goes 'Yeah, hold that bridge!' I honestly think the films will suffer if Bay doesn't continue to direct them because his particular brand of movie-making is so intrinsically vital to making these films the success that they have been that you'd be better off rebooting them and establishing a different tone and universe if you switched directors.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Terry, I know you love the concept art for these films, so for after you see the new one here is some of its art: I wish they had included Silver Knight Optimus in the movie. Josh Nizzi's art is always great. edit: Widowmaker would've been cool too, wonder why they didn't include her. edit edit: I find it funny that the PDF has started doing the rounds in the TF community and (predictably) a lot of people are automatically dismissive of it because "it's overly intellectual!"/"the Autobots are good!"/"this reads like some stupid thing on Tumblr!"/"I hate it because the author can't format things properly!" Deep thinking, this fandom has. CJSwiss fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
CJSwiss posted:I wish they had included Silver Knight Optimus in the movie. Josh Nizzi's art is always great. I'm back! I have witnessed things wondrous and terrible to behold. We discovered hidden movie in the first film, too! I'm gonna try to strip it out and put it up on Youtube, because it's really strange. Also: did you guys know Michael Bay's advertising work won a Clio? And that he graduated magna cum laude from Wesleyan? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:12
|
|
CJSwiss posted:I wish they had included Silver Knight Optimus in the movie. Josh Nizzi's art is always great. Yeah, she's interesting because you can just see her fitting in as Lockdown's lieutenant or something or a representative of the Creators as part of the story. It's also important to note that, according to the artist, they were thinking of including her at some point - hence all the other versions of her face, I guess - and then didn't. Too many evil robots? Maybe, but it's something to think about that Hasbro has not only suddenly found out that the fans want more female-gendered Transformers and that it's odd that the cynical marketing part of the film didn't just leap on that. So, they don't include any female Transformers but, over the course of the series, the robots have gone from 'they have male voices' to exhibiting male characteristics like facial hair. Robot gender isn't remaining nebulous, it's becoming more and more pronounced. Which is odd. It's getting to the stage where I think it's fairly clear that except for Arcee (who has exactly two lines in ROTF and maybe twenty seconds total of screen time) and the Isabel Lucas robot that the films are deliberately excluding female action heroes. And, to me, that's interesting because if the Transformer films really were a cynical 'built by boardroom' merchandising film series, you'd surely see some female characters to try and cash-in on that part of the market, especially when you can tell that the creative team is looking at recent TF media for inspiration. The Autobots Reunite track is very reminiscent of the main theme from the Transformers: Prime series and Hound is, basically, a character from that series named Bulkhead. Given that films are always decried as misogynistic, it's odd that no one has gone 'Let's take the easy way out and show that we're not with a kick-butt female hero' because that is what so many other blockbusters do. I just find it strange.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Many people have ended up hating the new films because they cling to the framing of "Autobots must be the good guys". This view is possible with the characters from the old cartoons and comics, but obviously doesn't work with Bay's films. Maybe the Autobots are 'modern' good guys. Brutal, bitter, self-centered, hypocritical, insulting and trash-talking. They're our modern video game heroes. The only thing missing is likely Bumblebee 'beebagging' a fallen enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Daryl Surat posted:Scorponok is in fact not killed by the military gunship: he is forced to withdraw. It takes quite a bit of damage to kill Transformers in these movies. Recall that he reappears in the finale of the second film, at which point Jetfire kills him. My experience is this, kids loving love these movies, and their parents secretly love to take them to the cinemas to see them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Transformer "God" is going to be a female and gives birth to Transformers like something out of the Queen in Alien Resurrection and Optimus Prime is going to rip her face off. Something about immature kids and boys and ew girl cooties or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 14:06
|
|
