Transformers 2

TheWesDude said:
1) the movie had a plot, if you dont think it had a plot period, you fail english comprehension.

Which I think no one seriously disputed here. Its not the lack of any plot what so ever but that Michael Bay as director doesnt even attempt to give it some substance (He very well knows what he is doing and hes feeling fine it as he said by him self quite many times). To say it that way I feel completely fine with it. I watch Michael Bay movies for the effects and asplosions, not cause of the deep and interesting characters but I can understand why some feel very "shallow" after watching any of his movies as I feelt that way after his Pearl Harbor accident ... no surprise that many of the Veterans hated his movie to the guts.

Underworld and Underworld Evolution which are NOT Michal Bay movies but just to explain some point are "entertaining movies" as well for sure. But no one would see them as movies with "much" substance even when the story usualy could contain a lot of more then just "pew pew" "slize some wolfes/vampires" throat. That even action movies can be filled with many interesting AUTHENTIC characters was proved by a lot of skilled directors just to Start with James Cameron which was known for his very action filled movies but still also known for good acting, see Terminator 1+2, The Abbys, Alliens etc.


2) it may not have been the awesomest plot ever, but its a 2 hr movie based on 30m cartoons and comics. the plot for the shows were always simple, if the movies did not have simple plots, it would not be transformers.

which means only cause the comic was written for 11 year old kidz it can not have some good acting in the movie and actualy dialogues that are "good" ? That the comic was not Shakespeare is clear. But I mean what they could have at least done would be to give a bit "more" explanation in the movie which also the comic did as well. I mean I am not a die hard Transformers comic fan but even I know that they have not always thrown something inside the comic for "just cause" you got most of the some information about it (who are the decepticons? Where do the Transformers come from, whos Unicron/Primus? Who are the fallen, what are their motives etc.)


3) in the cartoons, it was always about the autobots trying to save humans/planet from plans of the decepticons.

yeah about that part one can not complain thats true


4) they did change a bit on the robots on how they look both pre and post change, but in some cases its more coherent, and in some its not.

if I am honest for a movie they look awesome I mean no one as adult can really expect them to look in a movie like "this"
Click to expand...

2298925029_161ba0d97c.jpg


Already the later comics even went for a more "dramatic" look and changed many times in design and all. Some complains I dont understand either since its all just taste.

But characters with actual good dialogues and some explanation in a plot even can have a place in some action movie.
 
Okay, I watched it. I can't understand why would anyone write any reviews or FAQs on it. I can describe it using two words only. These words are "epic" and "shit". Epic shit.
 
The argument that it's supposed to be terrible, so stop criticizing it for being terrible is...terrible. One of the worst arguments I've ever heard. And Ebert's the one being lazy? Please.

It's like you're saying if it had been a good summer blockbuster, it just wouldn't be Transformers.
 
Fuckin'...People don't know how to read.

I never said that Transformers 2 is good, or that he shoulda reviewed it through a different lense. Transformers 2 is a flaming piece of shit, quite clearly. I enjoyed it because I like watching robots beat the shit out of each other. Ebert's job is to review movies, something I don't think he does particularly well. In my opinion, his review of this movie was done in a very generic way.

Clear enough?

On another note, fuck off.
 
Stag said:
I never said that Transformers 2 is good, that it's acceptable, or even that "it is what it is". Transformers 2 is a flaming turd, but, as I said before, I got what I wanted out of it.
Click to expand...
So you enjoy flaming turds? What is there to get out of a flaming turd? That's no defense.

Stop patronizing horrible movies or you'll keep getting more of them, like the inevitable Transformers 3. I guarantee T3 will be as bad as T2 or worse, since no one who goes to see Michael Bay's movies has any standards, apparently. They're supposed to be bad, right?
 
You are clearly incapable of parsing simple sentences, so all I'm going to say to you is that you shouldn't refer to Transformers 2 as "T2" because then the Terminator assholes are going to get in here.
 
UniversalWolf said:
The argument that it's supposed to be terrible, so stop criticizing it for being terrible is...terrible. One of the worst arguments I've ever heard. And Ebert's the one being lazy? Please.

It's like you're saying if it had been a good summer blockbuster, it just wouldn't be Transformers.
Click to expand...
Very well said could not agree more !

Sadly Bay does not even try it to go for something else then that.
 
UniversalWolf said:
Stop patronizing horrible movies or you'll keep getting more of them, like the inevitable Transformers 3.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.



Don't get me wrong, I starting watching the cartoon on day one, I played with the toys... when I was 11.
Are fictitious CGI robot tussles really enough? SO this is like the equivalent of porn for you? It doesn't matter how shitty the package around it, it's just a bridge from one robot fight to another?

And do people really not want the series to be any better than the intent behind the series; that of being a commercial vehicle to peddle a toy line? I know people have pretty low standards, but If we're all in accord that the movie is tripe, then why are people still going to see it?
 
Stag said:
I enjoyed it because I like watching robots beat the shit out of each other.
Click to expand...

Then why not just watch the old cartoon film which actually has some plot and you can tell what's going on in fights + some cool nostalgia factor, you damn usurper?!!/1
 
Why are you calling a movie you enjoyed terrible? What more do you look for in a movie than enjoyment?
I mean, going in you know you're not going to see a Kubrick movie. It's a Michael Bay action flick. If you enjoyed it, that movie does exactly what it aims to do.
 
After actually watching the movie this morning... I have to sort of agree with Stag, actually. Yes, it's tripe. Yes, it's mindless. Yes, the action is borderline incomprehensible (just like the first one, and I don't really see how people say it's worse, the action is pretty much just like the first one).

But... I don't feel like I was ripped off or anything. I knew what it was going in, and there is something oddly satisfying about watching giant robots beat the crap out of each other.

Still, I wouldn't say it makes a case for Bay being a good filmmaker. But if he's content with making lowest-common-denominator-cheese, then that's his prerogative I suppose.

One thing did bother me, though: am I mistaken, or didn't Megatron pretty much beat the crap out of Optimus Prime at the end of the first one? And then suddenly in this one Prime is such a huge badass that [spoiler:9f7679f9c2]he only loses while fighting against Megatron AND two other Decepticons because he stopped paying attention to look after Sam? AND didn't he rip Megatron's face off during that fight and then Megatron is fine afterwards?[/spoiler:9f7679f9c2]
 
zioburosky13 said:
Michael Bay is like Todd Howard, who prefers eye-candy than substance in his work.

Thishttp://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=2 pretty much sums up the movie.


Can you explain Megan Fox's appeal?

Yes. She looks like a porn star and has the same acting talent as one, yet for some reason she makes mainstream movies. This tonal disconnect is what's so appealing about her.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree anymore. :rofl:
Click to expand...


Wow, I don't see her as that boring used porn star. I think a more appropriate description would be sex, lust and sinful passion. Her features and expressions are definitely striking to most that find females attractive.

I find every facet of her body attractive but find an intriguing attraction to her face.

Most porn stars today (for me at least) seem to lack a sense of realism. Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm sure there is plenty superficial about Megan Fox's appearance; however, I see most typical porn stars as shapely objects that don't catch my attention much. I see Megan Fox in a similar league to that of Angelina Jolie... Actually, I see allot of similarities between them although I imagine Angelina has a fair bit more of a head on her shoulders.

Anyway, thats my two cents about Ms. Fox. The movie was entertaining enough if not just to oogle at the eye candy she added to the picture... Speaking of Megan Fox, it looks like the unfortunate flower boy was found. Will Kodak live up to their promise? And will this kid have an accident when date time comes?

http://gawker.com/5302389/megan-foxs-shunned-flower-child-found

:P
 
I knew the writing was going to suck but it was going to be a very good looking movie, I knew Shia Leboirhsilsidgjsdligj is a bad actor but Megan Fox is hot (overrated though), its a movie that makes up for it self as it goes along.

and that was only the first one!
 
I didn't see the first one and don't plan to see this, even before Ebert-

Stupid idea, stupid manipulation, stupid movie,
stupid sequel makes millions?

Stupid people.

And as long as Hollywood understands its audience, it will continue to make stupid movies that stupid people will spend money to see.
 
I had the displeasure of seeing this movie in the cinema.

If you've seen the first film and want more (or have not yet turned 15) then this film is for you. Otherwise, steer well clear. It is too stupid, too loud, too long and too painful to watch in one sitting. And this from an old Transformers fan.

Seriously, the new Animated series of Transformers are better than this.

That said, there is one scene in the film which I could propably watch several times over, the one where the U.S. Navy tries to take out Devastator. It's exactly like in the first film in the desert where the Marines are fighting Skorponok. I can watch that scene almost endlessly, but pretty much skip the rest of the film.
 
The only cool factor this film had that made me want to watch it was Soundwave. But then I heard that even tho Frank Welker is voicing him, they're not using vocoder to do his voice, I kinda meh'd
 
Hmm, just watched the movie yesterday. Yup, they fucking blew all the jokes, they were so many and so corny that it almost ruined the movie for me - much worse than movie one.

Still, I mainly went to see how Dreamworks did, and they did pretty fucking awesome as usual, so I consider my money well-spent. IMO, if they cut all the unnecessary (and stupid) dialogue, the movie would be even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top