Jump to content

Review - Transformers Dark of the Moon


Peter_Van

Recommended Posts

Yep.

 

A reboot would be a bad business move. These movies make a killing, a literal ton of money, and a few unhappy fanboys isn't going to change that. A new direction would be a soft reboot and what the series would need. I'm hoping for a NEST centered plot, I'd think that would make the most sense and make room for new characters. Shia was fun and all, but at this point the story shouldn't logically be about a boy and his car. Hell, that was even hinted at in DotM.

 

Oohh, Straxus or Jhiaxus would make a great villain for something like this. I mean, Megatron and his Decepticons have failed. A new tyrant steps in...

 

well said. Thunderwing would be cool too.

 

 

and please, no more Hatchlings. that was dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Can't see where they could go from here with another sequel. And unless they're talking giving it a decade or so, I can't see a reboot being particularly effective, either. Unless they can bring in a writer who really understands this material (and a director who actually gives a damn - because people, Bay didn't), it's only going to go further downhill from here.

 

I've always thought that this whole series would have been better served presented as something akin to a piecemeal war documentary - classified/unauthorized video taken of the Transformers and their battles, taking full advantage of the fact that they really are disguised, and can really move about with little to no direct evidence - or at least, with plausible deniability from the governments of the world. That way, it takes out the clumsy attempts at the human elements in these movies. I've heard so many defend the series by saying that Bay is good at explosions and car chases, and that Transformers is just that. If that's the case, why wasn't that all we got? Why did we have Sam, and his parents, and Mikela, and Simmons, and all the others who ultimately did nothing but weigh the story down? Here's hoping that, if this series does continue, it at least doesn't get any worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and a director who actually gives a damn - because people, Bay didn't)

Why do you say that?

 

Sorry but Bay did give a damn and did the best job he could. And Transformers became a worldwide phenomenon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I smell a season 3 esque plotline for this second trilogy. Galvatron, Scourge, Cyclonus, and those guys being the new 'Cons. Maybe reveal Unicron at some point.

 

And damn....Unicron had better down TERRIFYING, MENACING, AND DOWNRIGHT IMPOSING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and a director who actually gives a damn - because people, Bay didn't)

Why do you say that?

 

Sorry but Bay did give a damn and did the best job he could. And Transformers became a worldwide phenomenon

 

Mudflap and Skids would like to have a word with you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and a director who actually gives a damn - because people, Bay didn't)

Why do you say that?

 

Sorry but Bay did give a damn and did the best job he could. And Transformers became a worldwide phenomenon

 

Mudflap and Skids would like to have a word with you....

And Starscream would like a word wit you too Atmo :P

 

And Spooner, well both of you? Sorry using the twins is one hell of a weak argument.

 

Look at the box office tally for all 3 movies, and the fact that the Live Action Movies have made over $1 billion.

 

Sorry your complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Because money talks :P

 

Bay made Transformers the worldwide Phenomenon it is today, you can not deny that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

I would postulate that anyone seriously attempting to use The Twins--or any other character in the Bayverse--as a stand alone argument proving the supposed ineptitude of the Bayverse movie franchise on a pro-G1 platform had better be prepared to take a loooooooooooonnnnnnng, haaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrd look at G1. There were some characters all throughout the TF universe, including G1, that were just as bad that would be just as reviled today...if only for this internet thing. I love G1 as much as the next guy, but please.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one way to legitimately attack the Bayverse, and that attack should be concentrated on the filmmaking. The employment of anything else to the exclusion of the film itself to dissect or attack or critique or CRITICIZE the Bayverse IMHO based on what I've seen so far are incredibly, terribly weak. But see, I haven't seen a lot of that. People will just find one thing to ride, one thing to harp on and just ride it out for all its worth, and then declare that that ONE THING they want to harp on is the reason the movie is not just bad, but TERRIBLE. And that, honestly, is moderately irritating. It's irritating when Roger Ebert does it, and it's irritating when anybody else does it.

 

IMHO, this movie was not far off of the level of what many (myself included) would consider to be some of the--if not the--greatest action movies of all time (there were a handful of minor plot details and deiting errors that I vaguely recall that kept it from being rated even higher, and the movie was not totally uninflicted by the Essence of Bay and some of the odd casting decisions...but you'll get that in any movie. Did Paul Reiser really need to be in Aliens, for example?), and I think it gave about as many nods to the dedicated fanbase as a standard episode of TF:Animated would have done. To some extent, you have to put your Bay-Hate or your clinginess to G1 aside to even want to enjoy it. You've got to want to be open to the perpetual change of the TF mythos, otherwise there's no point to any of this. So much of G1--while I enjoyed it for what it was and is--just does not work in a modern-day context. Why anyone would want to hate on Mike Bay just to do so when Paul Bremer exists is absolutely beyond me, and it says something about the poster. Even I can see past what he's done and give him a pat on the back when he makes a good film. Why anyone would want to slavishly hold on to G1 when every other iteration of the TF mythos is as quick to update or ouright change "canon" as the Bayverse has and does is similarly beyond me. It makes about as much sense as hating Animated because most of the Animated seekers do not match--at ALL--their G1 bios, or hating BW because Optimus Prime was an ape. These are things that have very little to do with the movie itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No...You're not listening.... It's ONE thing for a character to not need facial expressions, but when they designed the face to ALWAYS BE FROWNING and then have him LAUGH and talk gloating in some scenes, THAT shit is just wrong and stupid! Nor does it work at all!

 

The smirk may not be Starscream's primary defining characteristic, but it's still a MAJOR one. Why else do you think MP03 has an alternate face with a smirk on it? Why else does every SS promotional image show him smirking or grinning?

 

It wasn't designed to be frowning it was designed to visually reference a fighter pilot's oxygen mask. Which is fucking clever, refreshing character design. You're describing a graphical icon NOT a character trait. You're the one who's not listening. Numerous people here have pointed out all the holes in your misguided argument every time you bring it up, and you bring it up at every chance you get. It's beyond old. Hell, you must be arguing just for the sake of it at this point. Why the fuck do they need to smirk so badly?! That doesn't define a character unless you're Alfred E. Neuman. Your argument belittles the character you're claiming to defend.

Now crawl back to your mother's basement until she calls you for pizza rolls.

 

Agreed.

 

I would postulate that anyone seriously attempting to use The Twins--or any other character in the Bayverse--as a stand alone argument proving the supposed ineptitude of the Bayverse ...

 

A-Fucking-men.

 

Thanks for putting in words what's been in the back of me head for a the past few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

I would postulate that anyone seriously attempting to use The Twins--or any other character in the Bayverse--as a stand alone argument proving the supposed ineptitude of the Bayverse movie franchise on a pro-G1 platform had better be prepared to take a loooooooooooonnnnnnng, haaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrd look at G1. There were some characters all throughout the TF universe, including G1, that were just as bad that would be just as reviled today...if only for this internet thing. I love G1 as much as the next guy, but please.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one way to legitimately attack the Bayverse, and that attack should be concentrated on the filmmaking. The employment of anything else to the exclusion of the film itself to dissect or attack or critique or CRITICIZE the Bayverse IMHO based on what I've seen so far are incredibly, terribly weak. But see, I haven't seen a lot of that. People will just find one thing to ride, one thing to harp on and just ride it out for all its worth, and then declare that that ONE THING they want to harp on is the reason the movie is not just bad, but TERRIBLE. And that, honestly, is moderately irritating. It's irritating when Roger Ebert does it, and it's irritating when anybody else does it.

 

I resent being lumped into (or, below) the same category as Roger Ebert or any other pompous movie critic, but I do understand the sentiment. I sincerely believe that the twins were in bad taste, and I will stand by that. But I did say, "besides everything else", so no, they are not the standalone argument, and I apologize for making it seem that way. We have been brainwashed to accept whatever hollywood throws at us to the extent that we can no longer truly tell the difference between what's good and what isn't; nobody's fault, it's just the way it is. However, if you want a serious discussion on the filmmaking itself, I would first ask which specific aspects you are referring to: the camera angles, the pacing, the performances (and if a director really has control over that), the editing, the writing (again, who really has control over that), or some other technical aspect of the movies that I'm leaving out? There are many ways to approach the argument, and I invite a serious discussion. But if this is going to be nothing more than a flamewar, then forget it. And if all it takes for a movie to be good is to make money, then yes, Dark of the Moon is the greatest movie ever. For what it's worth, there were a number of things I enjoyed from all three movies...but is it wrong to expect just a little more? For example, to actually have the enjoyable moments (Bumblebee's acrobatics) outweigh the cringe-inducing ones (any time Ken Jeong's character is in frame)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE