|
DoctorWhat posted:
But you didn't recite Terry's analysis to him word-for-word? Missed opportunity of the century, right there.
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Alright guys, are you ready for another round of "lovely Reviews of a Michael Bay Movie"? "This is science fiction with giant fighting robots, and it was completely unrealistic in more moments than not." That sentence is everything that's wrong with film reviews. DoctorWhat posted:ACTUALLY I asked as he walked away if the Autobots were supposed to be horrifying. I guess that's good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
I don't really know the individual Transformers' names or identities outside of the big ones (Optimus, Bumblebee, Megatron) but it never really seemed to matter too much.
Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Fat Lou posted:So, I put my edited pdf on my website just to easily share for my friends, and a few days ago it managed to be downloaded enough to cover 64gigs(2000+ downloads) within 24 hours. I looked into it and it got posted on reddit. On top of the downloads off of my site it then got downloaded 22,000 times of of scribd.com. In your Reddit post there you say the epub file has an extra post which your PDF does not have. I can't open epub, but what post is that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Yeeah, and that's pretty much a good thing, given that Megatron is... you know, Megatron. You seem to basically be advocating that propaganda = morality.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Optimus being right/good/hero and Megatron being wrong/evil/villain isn't propaganda. It's basic fact of the property, so much so that even someone who has seen zero episodes of the property goes into the movie knowing it. I asked before, I think: is there a character whose innate goodness/heroicness so ingrained in our society? Everyone knows who Optimus Prime is, that he's the Good Guy. Ok, but to me that attitude is exactly what the movies are satirizing by increasingly showing the characters in the hero/Good Guy slots acting more and more unheroic, unlikeable, and vile. How far can the supposed hero go before you question whether these "basic facts of the property" apply in this instance? What if we had the exact same movies but just the names and labels were all switched- Megatron for Optimus, Autobots for Decepticons? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Now imagine Optimus Prime is modern day America and look at he's actions in the film. That's the thing: it doesn't really matter when we're talking about fictional films, but people take the exact same approach to real life issues. America is The Good Guy because it's America, what more justification do you need? The American government can take all the same actions they condemn, because they're The Good Guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Given that the Autobots and their leader are undeniably good and heroic, I don't have to worry about them going 'too far' or attacking the wrong targets. This is a Transformers series, after all, not some watched-too-much-Watchmen series from the 90s. But so far your only reasoning given is his name and its associations. So again, what if we had the exact same movies but just the names and labels were all switched- Megatron for Optimus, Autobots for Decepticons? Are you saying genocide is compatible with being "undeniably good and heroic"? He doesn't just beat the poo poo out of Decepticons. He endangers Earth while paying lip-service to the ideal of protecting humanity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:A character being named Optimus Prime inherently means something, are inherently associated with certain things. Same thing with Autobot, Megatron, and Decepticon. I know the names have associations attached to them. I don't think those associations trump the actual content of these films. Like I said, the films are satirizing the assumption there, and yes doing so means acknowledging those assumptions exist. quote:Prime and the Autobots defend the earth from Megatron. Well, that's what he says his goal is. When in the films does he actually do this? If he gave Megatron what he wanted, wouldn't that protect Earth? Especially in the second film. I don't fully recall the third one. Have you seen Pain & Gain?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
MisterBibs, have you even read the analysis that is this thread's namesake? Regardless, at least you're proving that position the movies are biting at isn't just a straw-man. Like those people who watch Fight Club and then start fight clubs. Yoshifan823 posted:Hate to burst your bubble, but there's no way that laughable product placement wasn't intentional. I normally hate product placement but I do have a soft-spot for when creators accept it grudgingly but take it to bizarre or sarcastic extremes. Like that Community episode where Subway is a dystopian villain, or Lady Gaga's Telephone and Bad Romance videos. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Of course I did. Read the "Conclusions, or really just ramblings" part again. Especially this part: quote:I didn’t actually notice until someone in the thread pointed it out, but look at the
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Isn't the name Megatron a reference to the angel Metatron?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Sprecherscrow posted:So, is Terry coming back again? She said she isn't able to see the movie yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:This video is making the rounds on Twitter. It's by the same guy who did the excellent video about Edgar Wright's approach to visual comedy (http://vimeo.com/96558506) and does a great job of explaining why Michael Bay's style is so effective yet so frequently misused by Bay himself. Recommended for both lovers and haters of Michael Bay. Could do without all the qualification at the beginning, like his credibility is put in jeopardy by taking Bay seriously for like 7 minutes. Still a worthwhile watch for someone like me who is fascinated by his style but doesn't know too much about cinematography. "Bayhem" is not really the best term for what he's talking about- its specifically not wanton disorder or havoc. What he shows is these shots are carefully chosen to create a specific mood and effect for the viewers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I think the Bayhem label works because he uses those shots whether the scene calls for them or not. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but he just haphazardly uses these "cool" techniques without really understanding them, which is a form of filmmaking mayhem. The guy says that but doesn't really demonstrate it, though. He basically relies on Bay's reputation/meme for that part. The closest he comes is at the end, but in the actual film that was the most effective and memorable sequence to me. It's communicating something different than the shot from Fargo that he compares it to. The film is about people who want the good life but decide to just steal it, whereas these other characters have achieved it themselves. That's why there's still an element of luxury to the visuals there, compared to the mundane coziness of the Fargo one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I wasn't even thinking of that example, more so the twisting hero shots whether it's a big moment or not. See 3:15 in the video. But then you watch his Edgar Wright video where he expresses his dismay at directors that don't treat every moment as an opportunity for something dynamic. Which specific shot are you referring to? Colonel Whitey posted:He understands that they look cool and give a sense of scale but doesn't understand the other effects they have on the viewer and when to contrast that style with other types of shots. There is constant movement in the frame in so many of his shots that it creates fatigue, a lack of clarity, and makes every moment seem 'big' so that none of them seem big. That's what he doesn't understand, or if he does, he doesn't care (which is arguably even worse). Or that's what he wants. I think the sequence at the end of that analysis is a perfect example of his effective use of contrast. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:1) Terry, please make a proper eBook out of your criticism. Get that poo poo on Amazon. I'd buy a copy, and I bet a lot of other folks here would too. It would be great to see you get paid for all your excellent work. It's not for sale, but here is the whole thing formatted as an eBook: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231829079/I-actually-kind-of-appreciate-the-Transformers-movies-epub-version quote:2) I remember a few years back there was a rumored recut of the Star Wars prequels that supposedly edited them all down into one relatively effective film. I have neither the technical expertise nor the knowledge of cinema to make this happen, but I would kill a man (or at least donate to a Kickstarter) in order to get a well-made cut of the first three Transformers movies re-edited to support the satirical reading discussed in this thread. Cut out Sam's parents and all that other nonsense, emphasize the face-stabbings and transexual proletarian Megatron and the robot vagina dentata from space. The ugliness and discomfort of everything in Transformers 2 especially is a case of form following function. As with Star Wars, removing the parts that tend to make audiences uncomfortable isn't the way to bring out the satire. Might as well say someone should re-edit Naked Lunch (the book) to take out all the drug use and gay sex scenes, then it could reach a wider audience. What someone could do instead would be to make and spread a short video, like that "Bayhem" one making the rounds, high-lighting just the scenes that best support Terry's argument. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
I'm not American, but I was under the impression that in America at least works of criticism have more leeway for referencing copyrighted material?Indie Rocktopus posted:I was talking about removing the stuff Terry described as genuinely pointless (Sam's parents getting high, etc.) (although if someone wanted to make an argument for the inclusion of that in the original films, I'd be interested in hearing it). I'd assume the misogyny and racial caricatures and everything would stay. A faithful edit would probably be much longer than a regular film, maybe four or five hours - hell, the sheer punishment of sitting through something that long might even make it more effective. SMG already pointed out some good details, most of which I hadn't really considered. For me those scenes are important simply because what the film focuses on tells us what to focus on. So first of all those scenes establish that Sam Witwicky is the protagonist rather than any of the robots. They're also the first clues that, unlike Bay's reputation says, the films are not just an endless stream of crowd-pleasing money-shots. There's something more and different going on there; the films are as much about ugly, uncomfortable, and mundane subjects as they are about showing us awesome robot battles and explosions. quote:I've seen people mention the Star Wars prequels as similar to Transformers a few times in this thread... is there any particularly enlightening criticism of those films out there? Speaking as someone who's only watched the prequels as a kid expecting superficial entertainment (and hated them), I'd be very interested in an alternate reading. In the current Star Wars thread there has been a lot of discussion of re-appraising those movies in the same basic way as Terry did for Transformers, but unfortunately its broken up by other discussions and not really comprehensive or collected. At the risk of over-simplifying, my own take starts here: a) The films are mainly about the corruption of the Jedi council and the Republic, rather than the fall of Anakin as you might expect (though all three parallel each other). Though watching the original movies may have led us to believe in a rosy, idealistic picture of both institutions the Prequels are about showing us the ugly and unsatisfying truth instead. Its worth noting that the Republic isn't really conquered by the Empire, it actually is the Empire. Just like the Storm Troopers were actually the Jedi's own army- the imagery of Yoda ordering around armies of Storm Troopers says a lot. In this view the Jedi coming across as kinda lame and unheroic is not a mistake, but actually the whole point. b) Edit- I think I said this part better in that thread, so I'll just quote it here: Lord Krangdar posted:I had always been disappointed at the believability and rushed feeling of Anakin's turn to the darkside, like one minute he just seems like an angsty young man and the next he's slaughtering children. But this time I realized there is no point of turning, really. He was raised and mentored by powerful people, the Jedi and Palpatine, who used political power, the Force, and violence to protect their own interests. That was all he knew all along, and his whole reason for going along with the Jedi's training program even though they were constantly belittling him (in his mind). So why not jump ship to the most powerful (politically and with the Force) and more violent side? Who wants to be on the losing team? The key scene for me that made me re-think my assumptions about the Jedi as heroes was the part in the third movie where they vote to forcibly remove Palpatine from power, taking it themselves, specifically before finding out that he had been a Sith pulling the strings of the war all along. Hbomberguy posted:I might actually do this for Smugfilm. Any scenes you'd want to see done in particular? The one that interests me most is the one Terry pointed out in her conclusion where one of the Autobots just crushes a couple of civilian extras in a car, notable because its such a small detail yet it still had to be put there deliberately. I never actually saw that scene in the film, though, so it would be nice to have a clip of it. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Indie Rocktopus, I like your notes on ROTF there. That nightmarish quality pervading the second film is exactly why you can't take out all the meandering or cringe-worthy parts and still achieve the same effect. I already made the Burroughs comparison, but since you now mentioned Lynch there's the same kind of meandering nightmare atmosphere in his film Inland Empire (just at a much slower pace), and I think periodically withholding clear plot-progression from the audience is a big part of creating that feeling in all three works.
Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:The creepy part was that he had the relevant laws memorized and had a printout in his pocket at all times. Definitely one of those situations where if all you have is "But it's technically legal!", you've already lost the moral argument. That wasn't all he had, though. He showed that he genuinely cared about her.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Hmmm I hadn't considered that at the end Optimus is rocketing off to confront Hasbro.Indie Rocktopus posted:I'm ashamed to admit I kind of... liked the Autobots this goaround (shudder). At least for the first half. They're still complete psychopaths, but there's something endearing about how blatantly the three new guys embody action movie stereotypes. These guys learned about earth language and culture through the internet, so it came across as an incompetent attempt to adopt human identities. I know it's another blatant "robots in disguise" deception trick to garner human sympathy, but I'm ashamed to admit I fell for it. In this one it seemed less like they had these human media tropes as disguises to be accepted by the humans, and more like they needed them because they were so lost and directionless. The whole film felt oddly sad and sincere to me, which was a surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I'm kinda curious whether all the product placement was actually pursued and paid for by the companies, or whether some of it was actually requested by the filmmakers (like with Lady Gaga's Telephone video).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's a pretty safe bet that Optimus is going to nuke god. Meaning the film both begins and ends with references to Prometheus.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Kempo posted:If that was in response to my post, I guess the point I was trying to make is that I'm usually good at turning my brain off and enjoying things getting shot/blown up, but in this film the action didn't distract me from the cringy lines between the humans and the constant pointless poo poo Hound was saying. Moments where you're "taken out of the film" are opportunities to turn your brain on, instead, and actively think about what you're being shown and what ideas are being expressed or explored through the film. Why would anyone want to be immersed in these movies, anyway? The world they depict is a total nightmare. It's so strange to me that these films have a wide-spread reputation as the ultimate "turn your brain off" movies even as they actively resist that at every turn. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:One thing I noticed in this film, was the way the Transformers act, talk and behave like they are in a comic book. In the first three films you don't really notice because the human elements are also very comic book like. In this story you have a serious story of Marky Mark and his daughter being introduced to a very pissed of Prime. However the difference in robot behaviour became very apparent when we meet the autobots for the first time who are hiding out. One of the humans (I think its the daughter) says 'what the hell is wrong with them?' That question wasn't posed because the autobots were pissed off or acting out of character, it was because they were being so cartoonish in a serious life threating situation. In this film it really seemed like the Autobots were clinging so heavily to these cartoonish archetypes/stereotypes because they really had nothing else to define them- they started the film homeless on an alien world, directionless, leaderless, and friendless. What surprised me the most about this one was the undercurrent of sadness and sincerity to the film. I really didn't expect that, after the pattern the last 3 followed and the marketing focused on giant dinosaur robots.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
I feel like being "taken out of" these films is the only way to appreciate them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Kempo posted:Apparently the trick is to never be immersed in what's happening on screen, as your mind has to be constantly analysing the intricate details of Transformers: Age of Extinction, or you'll miss the subtle genius of "blob turns into gun, bigger blob turns into bigger gun". Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Someone made a super cut of the first 3 TF films on Reddit (I know, I know), and not 5 posts in Terry's analysis gets linked: http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2aaxzn/every_single_robotonrobot_action_sequence_from/ One link to the PDF has 25,828 views. Another has 463 views. So yeah, pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
For anyone sending out the link, this upload of the epub version that's also been going around is a lot more readable than the pdf one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231829079/I-actually-kind-of-appreciate-the-Transformers-movies-epub-version Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
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? Not that there aren't any, I just can't think of any right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Nobody had said anything about what was "intended".
Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
vseslav.botkin posted:I thought this was an interesting read: That's not totally off the mark, but then there are parts like this: quote:Transformers director and maestro of Bayhem, Michael loving Bay—the perpetual bad-boy idiot bro-savant—didn’t become Michael loving Bay because he stays up at night worrying about what critics and fan boys think of his movies. No, he stays up at night banging hookers on the hoods of solid gold sports cars filled with cocaine because his films have become giant temples of crazed cash-making wretched genius excess. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
There are no "good guys" in these Transformers films.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 stories of those Dead films are not consecutive, though, right?Marshal Radisic posted:Well, thanks to Terry's analysis and my own viewing of Pain & Gain, I've started to see Michael Bay as a filmmaker who's very interested in masculinity and how it is defined and broadcasted in modern American culture. Looking at all these movies, I'm starting to see the typical Michael Bay character as a man who intensely insecure in his masculinity, often believing he has abilities that society is not recognizing. (I can't say if this is a privileged "society owes me!" thing or as example of victimization by an indifferent society.) However, to solve this problem, the man tries to solve his problem by changing his branding, by projecting an image of himself as the man he wants to be (and to be seen as) in the hope that if he changes the package, he'll change the man inside. Needless to say, this never works, and only results in pain and misery for all. Some good insights here. In the first film Mikaela Banes isn't too far off from a woman character fitting the first pattern you describe there, and Maggie Madsen is sorta the opposite (though neither is fully explored, as the masculinity themes still dominate all five films). To quote from earlier in the thread (emphasis mine): SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's some important tension between form and content to factor in, I think. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think Bay has a much more ambivalent relationship to his subject matter than Verhoeven does. Starship Troopers is a film relentlessly mocking fascism because Verhoeven hates fascism with all his heart and humor is the most effective and disarming weapon he could use against it. I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but I still want to note the difference betwen loving watching or filming something as fiction and just straight-up loving it. Like David Lynch loves making films about "women in trouble", doesn't mean he's actually pro- women in trouble, right? I'd like to think we all understand that difference, but then you get Film Critic Hulk writing a recent article unironically calling Bay a sociopath because of what he depicts in his movies.  But yeah, the way I see these films is not far off from Starship Troopers as satire, yet Bay himself is not really comparable to Verhoeven. Verhoeven approached Starship Troopers as a satire all along and will say so outright, there's really no ambiguity there. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
According to Wikipedia Verhoeven never even read the full novel. And yeah, his film was mostly just named after the book after the script had already been written.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 02:43
|
|