Just Saw Transformers

Shup Diddy · Post by **Shup Diddy** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:49 pm

Icesickle wrote:
Shup Diddy wrote:so glad i'm not a film major, any wish i would have had to become one was instantly killed the minute i entered this forum
Cause people want to see a good movie instead of a 2 hour commercial for Chevorlet, E-Bay, and Hasbro? No one's making any ridicolous requests of the film...just that it not be corny, concentrate more on its subject matter (the Transformers), and slow down the editing so you can :omg: tell what's going on, etc.

cause every little nitpick over product placement or whatever sounds more like a whiny sap geek thing to say. all the stuff you're complaining about has been going on for more than a while now with no look of slowing down, so complaining about it in every movie it happens in is pretty tired. what did you expect from a movie that's based on a cartoon that's based on a toy line?

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:49 am

Okay, so I went and saw Die Hard and Transformers on the same night and:

Die Hard < Transformers

I had a LOT of fun during Transformers.

SPOILERS

Lebouf was surprisingly good, and watching the transformations was pretty badass. Amazing action. Yes, perhaps their could have been fewer cuts and not so in your face, but it was all still great. That shot of where the robots were skating down the highway was illy. I loved the nods to the cartoon throughout. Especially such as the first time you see a transformation they used the old sound effect from the cartoon. I also liked that when they introduce bumblebee he's parked next to a yellow volkswagon bug. I thought it was fine that the robots could choose what they wanted to transform into and change up if they wanted. Definitely added to the cool factor.

As for all the complaints on here.....jesus christ, you knew what you were getting into. It's an action movie and a Michael Bay movie at that, not great cinema. I will agree that I thought that Turtorro's character kinda derailed the movie a little, and he wasn't really necessary at all. Still, my overall gripes were completely overwhelmed by how much fun I had.

I say well done Michael Bay, I'll be at the sequel the first weekend.

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:51 am

I still don't know how anyone could like those action scenes...I couldn't SEE SHIT!!!!

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:51 am

Shup Diddy wrote:cause every little nitpick over product placement or whatever sounds more like a whiny sap geek thing to say. all the stuff you're complaining about has been going on for more than a while now with no look of slowing down, so complaining about it in every movie it happens in is pretty tired. what did you expect from a movie that's based on a cartoon that's based on a toy line?

Completely agree. It didn't affect my experience at all. In fact, it didn't even register despite reading the complaints on here before I saw it.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:53 am

I didn't hate the movie at all...it was a 6.75/10 or a 7/10 for me.

It just could have been done a lot better by someone like James Cameron.

SYM · Post by **SYM** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:21 am

Icesickle wrote:I didn't hate the movie at all...it was a 6.75/10 or a 7/10 for me.

It just could have been done a lot better by someone like James Cameron.

you were willing to wait seven more years? lol

james cameron takes his precious time on every single film he's done, at least michael bay knows how to keep doing a project every year, regardless of how good or not it is. thankfully, from the looks of it, this time around it worked for the better.

can't wait to see this when i finally have some cash. the spoilers aren't much spoilers since the plot isn't as important.

Willie B · Post by **Willie B** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:04 am

Trademark wrote:I still don't know how anyone could like those action scenes...I couldn't SEE SHIT!!!!

since i was expecting the close ups during the fight scenes, i wasnt bothered by them.
besides, starscream vs the other f16s > any action sequence this year.

Shup Diddy · Post by **Shup Diddy** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:30 pm

jamrage wrote:
Shup Diddy wrote:cause every little nitpick over product placement or whatever sounds more like a whiny sap geek thing to say. all the stuff you're complaining about has been going on for more than a while now with no look of slowing down, so complaining about it in every movie it happens in is pretty tired. what did you expect from a movie that's based on a cartoon that's based on a toy line?
Completely agree. It didn't affect my experience at all. In fact, it didn't even register despite reading the complaints on here before I saw it.

same here, i mean after the complaint about the action scenes i was expecting batman begins x20, but when i saw it i was like "THIS is what they were complaining about?"

elohim · Post by **elohim** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:33 pm

"job has all his children killed, and michael bay gets to keep making movies. there isn't a god."

Reggie · Post by **Reggie** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:47 pm

I ended up seeing this movie three times, and I can say that from the second time the action is a lot clearer. A lot. You can see the amount of detail that went into each moment of contact. Is it worth repeated viewings in the theater? Not really. But if you thought it was pretty dope the first time, you might think it's really dope the second time.

(this message brought to you by the MPAA)

blastmaster · Post by **blastmaster** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:01 pm

It was pretty damn excellent. Better than I expected. 8/10.

Laserbeak and the editing were somewhat annoying. Should have expected both though.

I think the close up kinda jumbled action gave you a feeling of the scale of the transformers. I like it a lot.

The hide and seek in the yard shit was offensive.

I really liked the Megatron backstory.

My favorite nerd-out moment was when Megatron told Starscream that he "failed him again". I always liked their strange relationship in the cartoon.

The way they kept throwing in "more than meets the eye" was cheese.

I thought Bernie Mack's role was perfect. This was the first time I have ever enjoyed him in a movie. I guess Bad Santa was good too. He sucks though.

You wanna talk about racism, how about Jazz being the only Transformer to die?

Peter Cullen is the man.

Megan Fox is top 5 right now.

Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

CaseJuan · Post by **CaseJuan** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:54 pm

Mindbender Futurama wrote:In the final battle, Jazz gets snuffed mad quick and barely had ANY presence in the movie. He was probably the LEAST developed Autobot, and went out like a sucka.

This was my main beef. I couldn't believe Jazz got killed like that (I work on Pontiac). He couldn't even put up a fight?! I know its Megatron, but he couldn't even get in a shot or two. And could we get any exposure for the Solstice?!

Reggie · Post by **Reggie** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:04 pm

Personally, I thought it was more racist that he transformed onto the scene with a handspin and said, "What's up, li'l bitches?"

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:54 am

blastmaster wrote: Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

Pulling an Icesickle?

Willie B · Post by **Willie B** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:18 am

http://mcsweeneys.net/2007/7/9weaver.html
A LETTER TO
OPTIMUS PRIME
FROM HIS GEICO
AUTO INSURANCE
AGENT.
BY JOHN FRANK WEAVER
- - - -

Dear Mr. Prime,

We have received your accident-claim reports for the month of Juneגthey total 27. I regret to inform you that GEICO will not be able to reimburse you for any of those repairs. I feel that I have sent the same letter to you once a month for the last six months, and I am now sending it again.

Since becoming a GEICO customer in January of this year, you have reported 131 accidents, requesting reimbursement for repairs necessitated by each one. You have claimed not to be responsible in any of them, usually listing the cause of the accident as either "Sneak attack by Decepticons" or "Unavoidable damage caused by protecting freedom for all sentient beings."

The only repairs for which you were reimbursed were the replacement of a cracked fender and a headlight, required after a Mr. I. Ron Hide backed his van into your truck; these cost $1,286.63. Our own investigation concluded that you were not at fault and that Mr. Hide had been drinking prior to the accident. Though police were unable to test his blood-alcohol levelגMr. Hide claimed that it would be impossible for police to examine his blood-alcohol content with a Breathalyzer, because he "doesn't breathe"גunder Washington-state law, refusal to take a Breathalyzer test is equivalent to returning a result above the legal level.

But, I repeat, those were the only repairs for which you have been reimbursed, and it was a very minor accident in comparison to your other claims. I mention a few to illustrate the larger trend:

$379,431.34 requested reimbursement for repairs to your truck cabin. You claimed the damage was caused by attacking fighter jets.

$665,789.11 requested reimbursement for repairs to your trailer. You claimed the damage was caused by a giant mechanical scorpion, which I can only assume is some amusement-park ride, although I question the wisdom of bringing your mobile home so close to such dangerous equipment.

$6,564,239.44 requested reimbursement for repairs to a truck part called the "Autobot Matrix of Leadership." You stated this occurred in "an ultimate confrontation between good and evil," with a Ms. Meg Atron and a Mr. U. Nicron causing the damage in question. Mr. Prime, I have checked every known car- and truck-part catalog published in the United States and have found nothing even resembling that part, never mind any part so expensive. Whatever disagreements you had with Ms. Atron and Mr. Nicron, I suggest that next time you either settle things peaceably or leave your Autobot Matrix of Leadership at home so it doesn't break. GEICO does not cover Autobot Matrix of Leaderships.
And the list goes on. Mr. Prime, I am going to remind you again: Your policy with GEICO only reimburses you for accidents that occur while you are engaged in the reasonable use of your truck and trailer. As I told you when you originally purchased the policy, GEICO does not offer Megatron coverage, Starscream coverage, Soundwave coverage, Decepticon coverage, or Energon-blast coverage. Those are just not the types of damages we would expect from reasonable use.

To sum up, GEICO has been unable to reimburse you for any repairs, but due to the high number of accidents you have been a party to this month, combined with the many accidents you have had in the preceding five months, your premium has increased to $235,567.50 per month. While that may seem like a lot, I remind you that it is a savings of $137 over Progressive and $98 over State Farm. Please have your check into our main office by the end of July.

Regards,

Simon Furman
GEICO Agent

beans79 · Post by **beans79** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:27 am

I work in insurance...this ^^ is glorious!

Combo7 · Post by **Combo7** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:57 am

blastmaster wrote:Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

By a mile. I'm always shocked when people try to argue against this.

elohim · Post by **elohim** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:55 am

Reggie wrote:I can say that from the second time the action is a lot clearer. A lot.

i'm sure it is, but y'know, unfortunately my head still hurts from the first time. nah, but seriously, michael bay's hyper-editing is terrible. i wish somebody would lock that asshole in a room and make him watch chinatown, andrei rublev or a fassbinder flick. stylistically, every one of his movies looks filmed by a kid with ADHD or someone who downed an entire bottle of dramamine.

Captin Planit · Post by **Captin Planit** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:38 pm

blastmaster wrote:The hide and seek in the yard shit was offensive.

Am I the only board member that enjoyed this scene? Fuck being out of context, I found it funny.

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:47 pm

Captin Planit wrote:
blastmaster wrote:The hide and seek in the yard shit was offensive.
Am I the only board member that enjoyed this scene? Fuck being out of context, I found it funny.

any point, or comment you make from here on out is moot...

Captin Planit · Post by **Captin Planit** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:10 pm

Would it help if I begrudgingly commented on the fast-paced cinematography of a movie about action figures and whined about the unavoidable cheese factor?

Captin Planit · Post by **Captin Planit** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:11 pm

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:54 pm

Captin Planit wrote:Would it help if I begrudgingly commented on the fast-paced cinematography of a movie about action figures and whined about the unavoidable cheese factor?

you would still be a retard.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Combo7 wrote:
blastmaster wrote:Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

By a mile. I'm always shocked when people try to argue against this.

Why? Cause the first two are better films that have far better action scenes and far better characters (Nicholson's Joker in 1 and Walken and Pfeiffer in 2)?

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:21 pm

Icesickle wrote:
Combo7 wrote:
blastmaster wrote:Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

By a mile. I'm always shocked when people try to argue against this.
Why? Cause the first two are better films that have far better action scenes and far better characters (Nicholson's Joker in 1 and Walken and Pfeiffer in 2)?

they are not better films they are better spectacles. The gritty raw real world approach of Nolan's batman is preferred by some to the over the top circus act of Burton's.

Combo7 · Post by **Combo7** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:47 pm

^^ Yep, pretty much.

Batman Begins is how I had always wished they made comic book movies.

Tweak Da Leak · Post by **Tweak Da Leak** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:54 pm

Trademark wrote:
Icesickle wrote:
Combo7 wrote:
blastmaster wrote:Nolan's Batman > Burton's.

By a mile. I'm always shocked when people try to argue against this.
Why? Cause the first two are better films that have far better action scenes and far better characters (Nicholson's Joker in 1 and Walken and Pfeiffer in 2)?

they are not better films they are better spectacles. The gritty raw real world approach of Nolan's batman is preferred by some to the over the top circus act of Burton's.

the only problem is that its a comic book adaptation, without the surreal imagery they don't translate as well

nolan did good with his batman, the clausterphobic fight scenes and ninja like approach were both excellent, but to say they were better films then either burton project is being a fucknut

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:56 pm

Trademark wrote: they are not better films they are better spectacles. The gritty raw real world approach of Nolan's batman is preferred by some to the over the top circus act of Burton's.

Woah, woah, woah. You're acting like I just said Shumacher's Batmans were better. Batman 1 isn't that over the top, especially for a comic book movie. And the action scenes, by any standard, are much better shot. Batman Begins suffers the same problems in its actions scenes as Transformers does: they're too cluttered. Nolan is great at building characters and atmosphere, but his action scenes leave a lot to be desired.

blastmaster · Post by **blastmaster** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 pm

Icesickle wrote:
Trademark wrote: they are not better films they are better spectacles. The gritty raw real world approach of Nolan's batman is preferred by some to the over the top circus act of Burton's.
Woah, woah, woah. You're acting like I just said Shumacher's Batmans were better. Batman 1 isn't that over the top, especially for a comic book movie. And the action scenes, by any standard, are much better shot. Batman Begins suffers the same problems in its actions scenes as Transformers does: they're too cluttered. Nolan is great at building characters and atmosphere, but his action scenes leave a lot to be desired.

Nolan's action scenes were a lot more realistic feeling. Big Spiderman-type crane shots of Batman swooping down over bad guys would not have fit the mood of the rest of the movie. The action in Batman Begins was awesome. The fights with Ras, the mansion burning, the fight on the train, the chase scene, the scenes where the city was infected with Scarecrow's shit etc. were all fansastically shot. The frantic, quick and claustrophobic feel was great and fit the movie extremely well.

The only scenes that were "cluttered" were the Batman fight scenes anyway, and that worked well to show how quick Batman was and how he came out of no where to kick ass.

Nicholson was great at being Nicholson being Joker, not at truly playing the part. I am positive Nolan an Ledger will do a better, more true to the character, portrayal.

SuperFeen · Post by **SuperFeen** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:48 pm

imo Burton's Batmans were good comic movies, Nolan's is a straight up good movie.