Print Page | Close Window

A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices
Forum Name: TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
Forum Discription: "Winner" of 3 RAZZIES® including WORST PICTURE
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3714
Printed Date: September 02 2014 at 2:27am


Topic: A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 5:14am

IT ALMOST DOESN'T MATTER THAT AUDIENCES HAVE MADE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=363&PN=1 - the #2 MOVIE of 2009, BECAUSE THIS SEQUEL-THAT-EXISTS-SOLELY-to-BE-a-MONEY-MAKING-MACHINE PERSONIFIES EVERYTHING THAT SUX ABOUT MODERN HOLLYWOOD: 

THE FEAR of DOING ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY ORIGINAL...

THE BLATANT DISREGARD for MOVIE-GOERS' INTELLIGENCE...

THE RELIANCE ON EXPENSIVE SPECIAL FX at the EXPENSE of RECOGNIZABLE HUMAN CHARACTERS...

and THE NOTION THAT IF YOU MARKET the HELL OUT of SOMETHING, the ACTUAL QUALITY of the FILM ITSELF DOESN'T MATTER ONE WHIT.

WE EXPECT MANY a "FAN BOY" to ARGUE WITH US on THIS ONE, BUT WHEN SOMETHING GETS MADE ONLY BECAUSE a PREVIOUS VERY SIMILAR MOVIE MADE a PROFIT, THEN WE SAY SOMETHING IS BERRY WRONG with the WAY THINGS WORK...


TORTURRO: "Whadda ya got there?"

LaBEOUF: "It's Michael Bay's Bag o' Trix -- Explosions, one-liners, expensive but pointless SFX...You know, the same ones he uses in every movie he makes!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 5:51am

I liked the first "Tranformers" movie and gave it four stars out of four. It was smart, fun, and great to use a toy line that was for kids and turn it into a movie that appeals to grown-ups as well.

So that "peice of s@*t" comment about the first film is unnecessary. Sure it might not be original, but it is better than some of the movies nominated on this site. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Just to clarify, the "piece o' sh*t" comment was actually about this 2nd TRANSFORMERS movie, not the first one (though I'd still have to disagree with your defense of #1 to some degree)... 


 



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 9:45am

This movie only exists for one reason ... other than to make money off of. To make a drinking game out of!

-Take one shot for everytime Shia Lebeouf yells "No-no-no-no-no-no-no!"

-Take one shot for every scene where Megan Fox is barely dressed or is getting undressed (Take another shot if the camera zooms in on her exposed body).

-Take a shot everytime something blows up (which should get you wasted pretty quickly).

-Take a shot everytime a Hummer is on screen (Take two if the Hummer is in a high speed chase).

-Take a shot if or when Michael Bay makes an on screen cameo, or better yet, boo really loudly!

-Take a shot whenever any character says something so stupid and campy that it makes you wonder if five year olds wrote the script (which is how I felt about the dialog in the first movie).

WARNING: Do not actually play this drinking game, because chances are you could die from alcohol poisoning within the first half hour of the movie...

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 2:09pm
Ooh!!!  You are so busted!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 22 2009 at 3:35pm

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Ooh!!!  You are so busted!

GASP! You mean ... the LA Times has targeted us again? Whatever shall we do?

Oh, wait, I know -- we'll just join sides with the hundreds of newspaper, magazine and tv critics who will agree with us about this being the most soul-less movie of the year.

Or maybe you're talking about those teenagers at IMDb, who have chronic ADHD (the target audience that Michael Bay leeches off of). Surely armchair critics like them have a better clue about what a good movie is than the likes of us! ...Oh, no, wait, they don't!

Yes, we're mocking the Transformers movie franchise. We mocked the first, we're mocking the second, and yes, we're going to mock the third, too. Why? Because we see it for what it is, H-Wood at its worst, based on all the aspects HeadRazz listed above. Those listed reasons are why the Razzies exist in the first place, and this movie embodies all of those aspects, so of course we're going to mock it.

And no, we don't care what one H-Wood butt-kissing newspaper has to say. Nor do we care what a bunch of teenagers who think Michael Bay is a genius just because it's easy for them to follow his movies, since he caters to their two-second-long attention spans.

Oh, and to warn you ahead of time: We're going to mock "GI Joe" as well. As Frank says, I hate seeing my childhood raped for profit...

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:06am

Seriously though (and all kidding aside) HeadRazz is just so very right about all this.

Let's assume for a moment that the first movie was OK. Movies that NEED a sequel have a compelling story and leave a lot of unanswered questions. Can you REALLY tell me that Transformers 1 required a sequel? Does it really have characters that interesting or original that you need to see them again? Take the Transformers themselves from the movie... Are they unique and individual? What is the point of this movie?
If you answered "The first movie made a lot of money, and the second surely will as well," you're correct. If you answered anything else (that isn't a comical spin on that), then you're wrong. Do you even think that Michael Bay sat around as a child and PLAYED with Transformers (He'd have been 19-20 or so when they came out)? Or is this aimed at a generation with disposable income (for now, that is)?

 



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 5:23am
Man, what the hell is going on here? I was looking extremely forward to this movie, and now there's a busload of negative reviews? You know, I bet they're coming from those who hated the first movie, so I'm sure there'll be positive feedback shortly.

What pisses me off is that Megan Fox is being made out to look like this vapid twat. Look, I suggest you guys go to YouTube and look up London Tipton. Please, do that, and I swear you all will be eating a dozen pound of crows.

I loved the first Transformers. It had alot of laughs, it was loose all around, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are a billion times more believable as a romantic couple than Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens, they rangled in Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus Prime, it had a kick-ass soundtrack (including Linkin Park's wonderfully sublime "What I Done", and a kicker from the Smashing Pumpkins called "Doomsday Clock"), the visuals of the robots were photorealistic, and it had me on the edge of my seat throughout. If you're expecting something deep from this, sorry, but watch an art film if that's to your liking.

And this Michael Bay hate is so 10 years ago. We get it, he's a hack filmmaker with contempt for his audience. It's not even funny anymore. Hello, we have untalented Disney pop singers being compared to the Beatles. Maybe Transformers is the Disney product for us males, but it sure beats seeing the Jonas Brothers and their stupid hairdos that the ho's go nuts over.

Look, I'm sorry HeadRAZZ, I don't want to rain in on your parade. But go back to dissing Disney's slew of sh*t. Because me and MiguelAntilisu love you for that.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 7:41am
There's no reason for Megan Fox to settle for the Screech (from Saved By the Bell) of this decade.

I'm trying to get beyond "I hate Michael Bay" jokes, myself, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the lowest common denominator. If he were a fraction, he'd be 1/1.

As one reviewer put it, Michael Bay makes pyrotechnic pornography. You can disagree with HeadRazz for choosing Transformers, but the reviews are bad, and the premise is inherently weak. He (and I) could be wrong, and it could be good, but he's justified in picking a movie that superficially looks like the cash grab of the 21st Century.  

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 8:10am

Yeah, well, with all due respect to you (because some of you guys are against Disney bullcrap) I am not a deranged fanboy.

I'm aware of Michael Bay's failures (I've seen Pearl Harbor - bits and pieces on TV - and I can relate to what everyone is talking about), and the fact that Transformers 2 is getting bad reviews. But I bought the score from Steve Jablonsky, and I'm already sucked into the madness. Maybe I'm part of the lowest common denominator that Michael Bay's playing to, but I wholeheartedly enjoyed Transformers without playing into the "We Hate Michae Bay!" agenda. Is it either hate the guy, or be lynched for it?? 

To be fair, we should be going after the new Disney company. I mean, they're honestly turning girls into young sluts who emasculate lower-class individuals for fun (like Megan Fox "supposedly" did - we don't know if it was intentional, she probably had something on her mind). Face it, women are supposed to be the respected gender, but when you have one of THE most annoying spokeswomen of the Disney Channel - London Tipton - supposedly popular (not more than Miley Cyrus, but to the fact that she has a blog on the Disney Channel website, so I'm told), the fact I mentioned would be forever negated. Therefore, the future that the film Idiocracy foretold will be coming ever so close, and both genders are going to be the most retarded creatures of the planet.

That's why Michael Bay, Megan Fox, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Kim Kardashian, and all these motherf**kers you hate with a blinding passion don't even compare to what my once-favorite childhood company is birthing.

Besides, if everyone hated Transformers so goddamned much, why did it make so much money? I'm sure some people with more than half a brain cell went to see it. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I find this entire string fascinating, since I assume we're all arguing here while none of us have actually yet seen TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.

My argument against the movie is about what TRANNIES #2 stands for as much as it's about the movie itself -- The robotic, knee-jerk, audiences-are-idiots-who'll-shell-out-ten-bux-to-see-stuff-b low-up-real-good mind set that currently rules Hollywood.

As I stated elsewhere, I was neither a fan nor a RAZZ-er of the previous TRANSFORMERS movie, once I saw it (though its gigantic box office returns did disturb me). The fact that this second installment is getting http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/ - far less favorable reviews than its predecessor did ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - LINK for R.T. Reviews on #1) was a factor in my choosing it as Worst of the Weak -- But as I said in my Berry First Entry on this string, it's the NOTION of making another one (when no reason exists to do so EXCEPT to make a fast, lazy buck) that I find so offensive...



-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 8:42am
A lot of people liked it, of course. That's why I say that it's playing into the lowest common denominator - those who like explosions, special effects, and a sexy tease.
I loved Transformers as a kid, and that's all the more reason for me to hate this franchise. They're exploiting my generation, and know that they can make anything with that sort of pedigree and that it'll make money. That's why you get a pyro like Michael Bay to direct it, and it'll get a huge budget for these guys to play with - they know it's going to make money no matter what.

Now enter the film critics - people who're supposed to know the basic elements of story telling, plot, artistic vision, etc. That's what they're paid to look for. And then they see something like this, and it's all about special effects and a couple of jokes and whatever, and it doesn't advance the artform, it advances the filmmakers bank account. You'll get a few cheap thrills out of it, perhaps, but you won't remember what the plot was afterward, or the moral it was trying to convey, or any of that. It's eye-candy.

You can like it if you want. Frank liked the other one, too. We're not lynching you here, we're disagreeing. As for Disney, it's the same thing to me - marketing not media - and so I'd go after either with the same fervor.

The Worst of the Weak is based upon what critics would call a "bad" movie, and the critics tend to agree that this was nothing terribly special.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 9:53am

Thank you, I'm glad someone said that. And I agree with what you said above; did the first movie really need a sequel? Not really. Actually, the Tranformers were barely in the first hour of the first movie, all the dialog sounded like it was written by five year olds, and the human characters might as well have been played by cardboard cutouts. "Lord Of The Rings" and "Harry Potter" have sequels because they are based on book series that tell long and detailed stories. Transformers has sequels because the studios knew that movie goers would be sucked into the big booms, shiny things, and Megan Fox's bare belly. Those aren't storytelling aspects, those are just eye candy that you can get from a video game or a Maxim magazine.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 10:24am

Anyone who thinks this second TRANSFORMERS movie isn't mostly about Making Quick Bux need only click on this http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers06.htm - LINK .

While B.O. MoJo estimates the first film cost about $150 million to produce (and probably another $75-$100 million to market) it ended up grossing over $700 million worldwide. By Modern Hollywood Law, any movie (good, bad or indifferent) that brings in over twice its investment (and that's before DVD sales, TV licensing and toy tie-ins factored in) demands that another film be made.

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 2:20pm

And one of the few non professional critics I agree with or listen to, the Movie Preview Critic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2_Y8zf9gF0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2_Y8zf9gF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXJVB9sa91E - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXJVB9sa91E

And some added humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAABQlsib8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAABQlsib8

Yeah, that sums up the movies in a nutshell.



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:19pm
HeadRAZZ: I don't want to start an argument with anybody, if that's what you're thinking. If you think I'm defending Michael Bay like a crazed lunatic, please relish the thought. I'm aware of the pieces of sh*t that Armageddon and Pearl Harbor were, so I'm not really willing to go to town on his balls. But, like you said, we didn't see the movie yet. I'll see what happens, because I listened to Steve Jablonsky's score, and I was mesmerized. But, that's just me.

In my opinion, I have a problem with the
audiences who waste hard-earned cash for other things. Whether it's the latest craptacular from the Disney house (check this interesting video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZgXg_7kVI8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZgXg_7kVI8 ) or one of Tyler Perry's soap operas masquerading as Really Important Films (if I'm racist for saying that, let it be your opinion), they might need to take more of a knocking.

Once again, HeadRAZZ, nothing against you or anything like that all.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:29pm
I would agree that it is being made mostly for the money. However, you also need to take into account that it was very well liked (if you look at all users on rotten tomatoes, imdb, box office mojo, and yahoo movies, it did very well). That was because the movie played to a certain target audience, and for once Bay delivered.

As for this movie, I think your over-reacting a bit HeadRAZZ. With all the sh*t that's being released this year, this is a sparrow's fart in the middle of a typhoon -- a very loud fart, but a fart nonetheless. It's pandering to a certain audience (mainly males 13 to about 30) and I'm sure for them, it will deliver.

As for me, I'm catching a midnight showing in about an hour, and I'm not really expecting much, other than to sit back in my  movie chair with some popcorn, and maybe a beer, set my brain to mush and watch as robots kick the sh*t out of each other Gundam Wing style.

Later guys!


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 4:46pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

A lot of people liked it, of course. That's why I say that it's playing into the lowest common denominator - those who like explosions, special effects, and a sexy tease.

That's a bit condescending, isn't it? Sometimes, people watch movies purely for entertainment. I'm pretty sure this is the case for this film. In an interview with an honest Megan Fox in Entertainment Weekly, she says "This movie is not about acting." Here's the rest of the fantastic interview: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20246950_20263258_20284375,00.html - http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20246950_20263258_20284375,0 0.html

Really. Read it. It's very interesting, including her talking about watching High School Musical 3 while high.

I loved Transformers as a kid, and that's all the more reason for me to hate this franchise. They're exploiting my generation, and know that they can make anything with that sort of pedigree and that it'll make money. That's why you get a pyro like Michael Bay to direct it, and it'll get a huge budget for these guys to play with - they know it's going to make money no matter what.

All movies are made to make money.

Now enter the film critics - people who're supposed to know the basic elements of story telling, plot, artistic vision, etc. That's what they're paid to look for. And then they see something like this, and it's all about special effects and a couple of jokes and whatever, and it doesn't advance the artform, it advances the filmmakers bank account. You'll get a few cheap thrills out of it, perhaps, but you won't remember what the plot was afterward, or the moral it was trying to convey, or any of that. It's eye-candy.

I think that's the point.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 5:51pm

Is it really that hard to ask for something with weight to it? Is it too much to ask for more complex "Dark Knight" popcorn movies and less movies that might as well be a series of scenes from video games all edited together? It's this mentality of "brainless/mindless movies are fun entertainment that should be rewarded" which is why H-Wood keeps getting away with stuff like this.

Now, I know what people will say "Hey, dude, relax. It's summertime, the time when all we do is turn our brains off and watch the pretty, shiny things blow up. If you want reality, look out the window". Well, fine, keep thinking that and see how many more crappy, mindless movies get produced. Sit back and enjoy as H-Wood takes every cartoon series and childhood memory you have and rapes them with "Batman & Robin" levels of camp. I'll no part in it. But hey, I'm clearly talking to brick walls here online where ADHD teenagers rule.

PS: On a happier note, rumor has it Michael Bay will not return for "TF 3". He says it's because he's tired of critics bashing his movies before they are even released. Well, Mikey, maybe if you tried making a low budget, slow-paced drama, the critics might give you an ounce of respect. But seeing as all your movies look (and pretty much are)  the same, that respect is going to remain a pipe dream.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 11:13pm
I like to think of Tyler Perry movies as live action Veggie Tale movies...

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 1:03am

Well. I like Sci Fi. I like Disney. I like stuff blowing up. I like giant robots!

That said, I didn't like Transformers I. The first half of the movie was actually pretty good, then the plot fell to pieces, the dialogue got even more amateurish, and the entire movie went to hell.

This is about Transformers II, tho'. I had hopes it'd be one of those rare sequels, one that would surpass the original. Hopes that appear to be dashed. Oh, well.

I am, also, developing a strong dislike for Shia Lebeouf. Here's to hoping this second offering of dreck gets his career flushed down the toliet. I doubt it, given the box office, sigh.

I'm not gonna contribute to either his or Bay's pockets by seeing what I already know is a piece of crap, not even on Blu-Ray. Sue me.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 2:41am

Okay, yes, ALL movies are made in order to make money back, but some, not many, but some are made to be viewed as art. However, ever since the birth of the blockbuster, that goal has taken the backseat.

See, we at the Razzies view movies as food. You have your fruits and veggies (your serious dramas and timeless comedies with complex characters, sharp and witty dialog, and multi-layered plotlines), you have your veggies with some added chocolate, cheese or sugar (SMART blockbusters like "Dark Knight", "Iron Man", and "Star Trek 2009"), and then you have your junk food ("Transformers 2").

"TF 2" is like a cheeseburger with four mystery meat patties that were deep fried, covered with eight slices of melted, artifical cheese, topped with ten strips of geasy bacon, all on a Wonder Bread bun. Sure, it's going to taste good, but it's going to clog your heart and make you fat.

We here at the Razzies are sick of hearing how fat Americans are getting (in other words, tired of seeing nothing but mindless remakes and sequels coming out). All we ask for is more chocolate covered strawberries (summer movies that have CGI and explosions, but with meaningful characters and reasoning behind the CGI and explosions). But sadly, Americans like their fast food because it tastes good, it fills them up, and it's cheap (in order words, shut your brain off and stare at the big, shiney things as they go BOOM!).

Sure, it's going to be the biggest money maker of the year, but just because it's a hit, doesn't mean it isn't st.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 11:40am
You know, I just read the first sentence of that post, and was totally about to make a whole food analogy as well. Derp. Lazy me. But in mine, I was going to call TF2 a Fried Twinkie.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 12:23pm
I was invited by some friends to see this just this afternoon, and while I
haven't seen the first one, I have this to say for it: If the original
Transformers is half as witless as its sequel, then it must be witless
indeed. The characters are so cartoonish and the plot is so devoid of
attention span that essentially we're watching a loud, long, meaningless
exercise in special effects. One more thing I should point out about the
movie's humor: the gags are so lame that they wouldn't make it on a third-
rate sitcom. Instead of actually thinking of some clever comic scenarios or
writing a few clever one-liners, the filmmakers show a robot dog(or
whatever you want to call it) humping Megan Fox's leg and try passing that
off as a joke.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 1:44pm
I found out today that for one particularly large explosion, they spent SEVEN MONTHS, which was longer than the shooting of the entire film. Does this show where the priorities lie?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 2:12pm
A quick sampling of some of the 31/147 positive reviews:

Good when it is good, but extremely, shockingly, horrifyingly bad when it is bad.

By the climactic desert conflict, in which the entire Valley of the Kings is razed, the film has become so breathtakingly, boneheadedly brazen that it’s easier just to give in.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is everything that made the first film awesome and terrible at the same time... to a factor of ten.

The quintessential Michael Bay movie, though in this instance I mean that as high compliment.
(There's an ACTUAL compliment I snuck in)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof [Bay] has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement.
(Armond White liked it... There's a red flag)

Like the original, the film is a giant frenetic spectacle that worships excess.

and finally

While it would be hard to make a case for ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ as ‘good’ in any normal sense of the word, it possesses such brute force that the viewer is left with two options: surrender, or suffer in silence.

I kind of wanted to do that quickly, and didn't feel like attributing the critics for the most part. But it gives you the sense that if you like this, it's going to be a guilty pleasure. If you do like it, more power to ya, I guess.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 24 2009 at 4:09pm

SPOILERS!

Also keep in this is nothing but a 150 minute long toy ad for kids, and yet it has a mother eating pot and freaking out, a robot humping Megan Fox's leg, a reference about the giant combining robot's "balls", not to mention when Bumblebee peed on a guy in the first movie, and the fact this movie is full of PG-13 cursing ... and the fact the Twin Autobots are the most insulting sterotypes of blacks since Jar Jar Binks. Yeah, bring the wife and kids along, it's family friendly! Oh, and by the way, Sam buying Bumblebee and meeting the Autobots was not an accident, it was all part of a Cybertron prophecy. Yes, that's right, because nowadays, having a prophecy in your script covers up any and all plotholes ... in theory. Palm, meet forehead.

This movie is the ultimate example of Hollywood trying to cash in, even right before the writer's strike; it was rushed as hell. One critic at RT compared this to "Batman & Robin"; I agree completely.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 3:52am
The cartoon was also a toy commercial, to be fair.

I was reading the "trivia" section on the IMDB. They're apparently very proud of the AutoBoTwins, as their apparently called.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 6:22am
" http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800366478/info/ - Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen" sets Wednesday with $60.6 M debut it beat out Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" in 2007 I guess there a safe bet that will be seeing Transformers 3 real soon.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 8:58am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley


I was reading the "trivia" section on the IMDB. They're apparently very proud of the AutoBoTwins, as their apparently called.

Wow, then the producers must really have low standards if they consider the "GhettoBot Twins" as something to be proud of.



Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 9:18am
I read in Rolling Stone critic's Peter Travers (whose a voting RAZZIE member as well) on this not just giving this zero stars but is thinking that this has a shot at the title for Worst Movie of the Decade. Here's a http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/25458013/review/28840142/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen - LINK  to read his full review...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 11:33am
Well then...
Again, like it if you want, but it certainly seems fair to give it a WotW. I guess the argument on those grounds is fairly ended.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 11:49am
All right, I came back from seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and I've come with a review. Not a pro- or anti-Michael Bay letter, mind you.

I honestly don't understand what the problem with everybody around here is. So far, all the negativity surrounding ROTF revolves around the Twins, Skids and Mudflap. Really? I first saw these guys in a trailer, and I was never lead to believe they were degrading stereotypes of African Americans. The fact that people are so hung up on them, as well as Megan Fox's acting (which I'll get to) and the humor of the film, honestly leads me to believe that there are a lot of those who have huge objects up their ass. I'm not kidding, because it was a real exhilirating movie, besides the last part, which dragged out, and I wanted to see the scene where Sam nearly bites it.

This leads me to that scene. This is where the spirit of the first Transformers movie shined the most. It was a very emotional scene, and Megan Fox handled it without going into unnecessary melodramatics or stiff acting (I think she can be a good actress if she can lay off any plastic surgeory, and an interview she did with E! News last night kinda makes me think if recent hate towards her is just angry douches with minimal life). Maybe it's me, the scene was really heartbreaking, seeing Sam Whitwicky almost die. Am I alone here?

The only problems? Well, I can't list any, besides the somewhat long-ass finale (it's still was packed to the gills with action, I'm not lying). And there are numerous shots with so many distracting lens flare. Aside from that, Shia LaBeouf and Megan managed to jump around the romance subplot with humor and some sweetness that elevates it from cliched CW corniness, and co-star John Turturro brings his colorful personality along for the ride as former Sector 7 agent Simmons.

Look, maybe it's me, and I'm probably a puppet of Michael Bay's collection. So, sue me. But I think there are people who are afraid to admit they liked it, and decide to bag on Bay because it seems to be a fad. I won't defend him, but I won't join the crowd and bag on the guy.

Overall, I'll give it a 7/10. Will that be reasonable, or am I being a dick?


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 2:56pm
Again, like it if you want, man, but on a movie like this, I don't think anyone is being forced to say they thought it was stupid. As I mentioned above, many of the positive reviews contain the same information as the negatives. It seems to me that you go into it knowing that it's not going to be "good," and then you end up letting that bother you, or you don't. Quite frankly, I think it's important to let it bother you if you really don't need to like it.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Again, like it if you want, man, but on a movie like this, I don't think anyone is being forced to say they thought it was stupid. As I mentioned above, many of the positive reviews contain the same information as the negatives. It seems to me that you go into it knowing that it's not going to be "good," and then you end up letting that bother you, or you don't. Quite frankly, I think it's important to let it bother you if you really don't need to like it.


Well, I exhausted this, so now I'm looking forward to what'll be next week's bombs.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 4:51pm

Well, unlike a certain other person on the board, we know you're not posting here just to disagree with us just because you can. Now, I will admit, I have talked to people about the movie, and they like it for the most part, if only as mindless entertainment. Many of those RT reviews that speak highly of the movie say you have to turn your brain off to enjoy it. It's not the same as, say "Disaster Movie", which was a trainwreck from the word go and doesn't deserve any praise of any sort. But at the same time, outside of CGI and T&A, "TF2" doesn't bring much to the table.

But I have to be honest, I hate Michael Bay. He is the embodiment of everything that's wrong with Hollywood. I was a Transformer fan as a child, and seeing this piece of sh*t , it sickens me to see what Bay has done to my childhood heroes. The GhettoTwins, the wrecking "balls", the pot eating, the living sex doll that is Megan Fox, the annoyance that is Shia Lebeouf. It's like what the Movie Preview Critic said, paste Bay's head to Bumblebee during the peeing scene from the first movie and that is how I feel about this.

So critics and movie goers have different views on blockbuster movies, that's nothing new. The movie goers will no doubt make this the highest grossing movie of the year, and the third installment is probably already in the works. I can't stop this, it would be like trying to stop the Earth from rotating around the Sun. But it still pisses me off that it's happening. I don't blame you for liking it, but as for me, I'm voting for it in every Razzie catagory possible.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 26 2009 at 12:15pm
It's the problem with Capitalism in general these days. We're not rewarding quality anymore.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 5:09am
Originally posted by Michaels

Well, unlike a certain other person on the board, we know you're not posting here just to disagree with us just because you can. Now, I will admit, I have talked to people about the movie, and they like it for the most part, if only as mindless entertainment. Many of those RT reviews that speak highly of the movie say you have to turn your brain off to enjoy it. It's not the same as, say "Disaster Movie", which was a trainwreck from the word go and doesn't deserve any praise of any sort. But at the same time, outside of CGI and T&A, "TF2" doesn't bring much to the table.

But I have to be honest, I hate Michael Bay. He is the embodiment of everything that's wrong with Hollywood. I was a Transformer fan as a child, and seeing this piece of sh*t , it sickens me to see what Bay has done to my childhood heroes. The GhettoTwins, the wrecking "balls", the pot eating, the living sex doll that is Megan Fox, the annoyance that is Shia Lebeouf. It's like what the Movie Preview Critic said, paste Bay's head to Bumblebee during the peeing scene from the first movie and that is how I feel about this.

So critics and movie goers have different views on blockbuster movies, that's nothing new. The movie goers will no doubt make this the highest grossing movie of the year, and the third installment is probably already in the works. I can't stop this, it would be like trying to stop the Earth from rotating around the Sun. But it still pisses me off that it's happening. I don't blame you for liking it, but as for me, I'm voting for it in every Razzie catagory possible.



Well, thank you for at least respecting my opinion. And, you know, if it get Razzie nominations, I don't care. The last one did (for Worst Supporting Actor: Jon Voight). All I'm saying is that the numerous reasons TF2 is bad sounds rather silly (I didn't realize the Twins were black, nor did I find literal testicles on the back of Devastator; they look just like wrecking balls more than anything). That's all I'm saying.

I don't think Megan Fox is going anywhere soon. She has an assload of movies down the pike, including the horror comedy Jennifer's Body, the film adaptation of DC Comics' Jonah Hex, some films with A-listers Paul Giamatti and Mickey Rourke, and another comic book film called Fathom. Hey, if she likes playing video games (she said she likes Wii, and was caught playing Guitar Hero on sexy gossip site Egotastical) and hates gossip, I'll take her over twat extraordinaire Miley Cyrus and wet blanket Vanessa Hudgens.

Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

As for any Seltzerberg products, they don't seem to phase me for some reason. Of course, they're not exactly quality entertainment, but for them to go after such bullsh*t pop culture phenoms like Hannah Montana, High School Musical, and everything else, they get an A for effort. Still, the execution doesn't mean I'll see their films anytime soon. And we haven't heard from these guys since Disaster Movie!


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 8:21am
You really think they get an A for effort just because they "make fun of pop culture?" They don't though, that's the thing about it. They just take look-a-likes and put them in bizarre situations. In the case of Hannah Montana, for example, she gets hit with an meteorite... So? How does this mock her rapid rise to fame on a foundation of the most bubblegumyiest of pop music? Seriously, if you REALLY want someone to go after pop culture like that, I'll try to get some buddies together and I guarantee I can produce MUCH better satire in a single afternoon. If anything, Seltzerberg is GLORIFYING them - simply using their image and essentially saying "everyone knows who you are, so this will be funny."
The only real "going after" that occurred in DM was Juno, where they made fun of the overly mature manner in which she spoke, and always tried to sound witty. Otherwise, it's "the Hulk gets his pants blown off by a tornado, then gets hit by a cow" then "Iron Man tries to stop the tornado, and then gets hit by a cow" then "Hannah Montana gets hit by a meteorite" then "Hancock gets ready to save the day, but hits his head on a lightpost." I still think that DM should be listed in at least the top 5 worst movies of all time.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 10:17am

Originally posted by sportsartist24

I read in Rolling Stone critic's Peter Travers (whose a voting RAZZIE member as well) on this not just giving this zero stars but is thinking that this has a shot at the title for Worst Movie of the Decade. Here's a http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/25458013/review/28840142/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen - LINK  to read his full review...

If this movie has a shot at Worst Movie of the Decade, then it's somewhere behind Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Rollerball, Dumb and Dumberer, Gigli, Catwoman, Alone in the Dark, Son of the Mask, Date Movie/Disaster Movie/Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans, the High School Musical trilogy, I Know Who Killed Me, Twilight, and Hannah Montana: The Movie.



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 11:10am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

You really think they get an A for effort just because they "make fun of pop culture?" They don't though, that's the thing about it. They just take look-a-likes and put them in bizarre situations. In the case of Hannah Montana, for example, she gets hit with an meteorite... So? How does this mock her rapid rise to fame on a foundation of the most bubblegumyiest of pop music? Seriously, if you REALLY want someone to go after pop culture like that, I'll try to get some buddies together and I guarantee I can produce MUCH better satire in a single afternoon. If anything, Seltzerberg is GLORIFYING them - simply using their image and essentially saying "everyone knows who you are, so this will be funny."
The only real "going after" that occurred in DM was Juno, where they made fun of the overly mature manner in which she spoke, and always tried to sound witty. Otherwise, it's "the Hulk gets his pants blown off by a tornado, then gets hit by a cow" then "Iron Man tries to stop the tornado, and then gets hit by a cow" then "Hannah Montana gets hit by a meteorite" then "Hancock gets ready to save the day, but hits his head on a lightpost." I still think that DM should be listed in at least the top 5 worst movies of all time.


Hey, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Disaster Movie is one of the worst films of all time. Even if it dared to poke fun at tired trends, you need to have a professional screenwriting team who can mine them for genuine laughs and satire. Unfortunately, Disaster Movie lacked that sheen. Believe me, you won't catch me dead watching Seltzerberg films.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Originally posted by sportsartist24

I read in Rolling Stone critic's Peter Travers (whose a voting RAZZIE member as well) on this not just giving this zero stars but is thinking that this has a shot at the title for Worst Movie of the Decade. Here's a http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/25458013/review/28840142/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen - [COLOR=#ff0000 - LINK[/COLOR -  to read his full review...


If this movie has a shot at Worst Movie of the Decade, then it's somewhere behind Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Rollerball, Dumb and Dumberer, Gigli, Catwoman, Alone in the Dark, Son of the Mask, Date Movie/Disaster Movie/Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans, the High School Musical trilogy, I Know Who Killed Me, Twilight, and Hannah Montana: The Movie.



To be fair, whether WE liked them or not, I don't think the HSM movies are really all that bad for what they are, nor is Twilight. Hannah Montana may even be debatably tolerable to the right demographic.
I'm not saying I like them or recommend them, but you really shouldn't put them on the same plate as the others, which were yea... pretty damn bad.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 27 2009 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Originally posted by sportsartist24

I read in Rolling Stone critic's Peter Travers (whose a voting RAZZIE member as well) on this not just giving this zero stars but is thinking that this has a shot at the title for Worst Movie of the Decade. Here's a http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/25458013/review/28840142/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen - [COLOR=#ff0000">LINK[/COLOR">  to read his full review...


If this movie has a shot at Worst Movie of the Decade, then it's somewhere behind Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Rollerball, Dumb and Dumberer, Gigli, Catwoman, Alone in the Dark, Son of the Mask, Date Movie/Disaster Movie/Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans, the High School Musical trilogy, I Know Who Killed Me, Twilight, and Hannah Montana: The Movie.



To be fair, whether WE liked them or not, I don't think the HSM movies are really all that bad for what they are, nor is Twilight. Hannah Montana may even be debatably tolerable to the right demographic.
I'm not saying I like them or recommend them, but you really shouldn't put them on the same plate as the others, which were yea... pretty damn bad.

Gosh, the HSM movies must really get to some people. I actually bought the movie on Blu-Ray, the 3-disc set, the week it came out. There was a good deal that I couldn't pass up. I really enjoyed the movie.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 28 2009 at 3:41am

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

If this movie has a shot at Worst Movie of the Decade, then it's somewhere behind Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Rollerball, Dumb and Dumberer, Gigli, Catwoman, Alone in the Dark, Son of the Mask, Date Movie/Disaster Movie/Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans, the High School Musical trilogy, I Know Who Killed Me, Twilight, and Hannah Montana: The Movie.

Let's see, that is a tall order to make. Is this movie as bad as:

1. A movie whose DP thought having the camera at a tilted angle at all times was a good idea. (BFE 3000).

2. Whomever thought 90 minutes of Tom Green making random noises with his mouth would be funny. (FGF).

3. An uncalled for remake starring a second banana from "American Pie", a rapper, and a supermodel. (RB).

4. The first movie in a long line of unfunny Jim Carey sequels that were without Carey himself. (D&Der).

5. Bennifer's train wreck of a "rom-com". (G).

6. The worst comic book movie EVER, which had NOTHING to do with the comic book it was suppose to be an adaptation of. (CW).

7. One of Uwe Boll's many "masterpieces". (AITD).

8. Another Jim Carey-less sequel to a Jim Carey movie. (SOTM).

9. Anything Seltzerberg makes.

10. Disney milking a dumb idea for all it's worth. (HSM).

11. Lindsay Lohan in a glorifed Sci-Fi (sorry, Sy-Fy) Channel TV movie. (IKWKM).

12. A romantic vampire movie in which the vampires are nothing like actual vampires. (T).

13. Disney's other milking of a dumb idea. (HM).

The answer: YEAH, it's at least on par with all those movies. Peter hit the nail on the head.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 28 2009 at 7:34am
Peter... Rabbit?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 28 2009 at 1:12pm
Decepticon forces return to Earth on a mission to take Sam Witwicky prisoner, after the young hero learns the truth about the ancient origins of the Transformers. Joining the mission to protect humankind is Optimus Prime, who forms an alliance with international armies for a second epic battle.

So there it was. The trailer. Played on the silver screen. It looked darker than the previous film. The tagline "Revenge is coming" reinforces that aspect. It excited me. This could really be a serious, dark movie, like THE DARK KNIGHT. I was wrong. So wrong. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I was insane hoping for a serious, dark, gritty action flick from Michael Bay. In fact, the trailer doesn't show any of the crude and sexual humor throughout the film. And you know what? I found the jokes pretty funny. Sure, some of the jokes are just disgusting (you'd be surprised what lays hidden in this movie), but I liked the laid back feel.

The plot was...confusing, I will admit, but in a film like this, does it really matter? The movie never ceases to be entertaining. The action sequences are amazing, but directed by Michael Bay, it's not surprising. If there is one thing I have to say about him, he knows how to entertain audiences. And he was right when he said there would be more action scenes in the film. You thought the first movie had a lot of action scenes? Oh, God, I wouldn't even begin. To keep it simple, the special effects are nothing short of being flawless. I loved the score by Steve Jablonsky, most of it being brought back from the first movie.

In an interview with Megan Fox, the sexy actress said the following: "This movie is not about acting." And she's right. I can go on saying that the humans in the films were actually the robots, but that's not particularly true. You have to give credit to Shia LaBeouf's part, at least. He does a swell job, given the material. I found John Turturro to be quite annoying in the first film but the producers or writers decided it was a good idea to bring him back. I still found him annoying in the film and I especially rolled my eyes when he was doing a serious scene.

This goes along with Sam's parents in the film, Kevin Dunn and Julie White, although I don't find them quite as annoying. In fact, I enjoyed most of their scenes. They give some good comic relief throughout the film. I just didn't like them being serious because you just can't take them seriously. The writers apparently thought Ramon Rodriguez's character was a good idea. I just really hated him. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson also returned for the sequel, although they don't have much to do. Overall, the whole cast pretty much had one thing to do: Run in slow motion.

With all the positives, there was no doubt some negatives. The most obvious is the overly long running time. I don't think Michael Bay ever made a movie less than two hours. I would've liked the movie if it were thirty minutes shorter. It was until the third act that I realized how long the movie was going to be. It started to meander a bit after that and there came a point in the film that there was just overkill. The movie was just really long. Another thing that annoyed me was a pair of twin Transformers. Actually, add another Transformer. All three of them were yelling profanity throughout. Not my thing.

If you walk into the movie with the right mindset, you'd be surprised that you had enjoyed most of the film. The action sequences are just fantastic but the plot is lacking. The actors don't have much to do but to run around and scream. But really, what are you going to expect when you walk into a Michael Bay film? A plot? Great performances? A delightful script? Nah. You'd expect action. Action. And did I mention action? ****


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 28 2009 at 1:29pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Peter... Rabbit?

Travers, actually. Is the Disney tweens humor getting to you?

By the way, here's a video I found amusing, as it mocks Bay and just about every cliche you see in ... every ... single ... "movie" he makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7-Hes1Hlw - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7-Hes1Hlw

Too bad the outcome to this movie couldn't be different.



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 28 2009 at 4:19pm

Long time no post, but as much as Razz will Razz me for saying this it has to be said (Just like I said on the 1st on), If you looking for one hell of a action flick for the summer this movie delivers in spades!!! If you are looking for the next Cannes or Academy Award winner, just keep on looking (except maybe in SFX or Sound).

Anyways, Let face it, there are plenty of movies this year that deserve our "dishonors" (Land of the Lost or Year One anyone?) more than this movie...  



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 29 2009 at 2:17am

I forgot about that...Sue me.
And if you want a good action movie this year, we had Crank: High Voltage, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Probably about as much plot, but much, much more creative.



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: June 30 2009 at 5:50pm

Ok, I'll probably put that on my Rent Movies list...



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 3:20am
Originally posted by sportsartist24

Ok, I'll probably put that on my Rent Movies list...


It's better to commit suicide...JUST KIDDING.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 3:41am
I rented the first one, after seeing the second. The second one felt a little more fun. I think it might've been because he just needs electricity in the second one, and it was a lot trippier.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 4:30am
The first one I waited to see on HBO, and I was banging my head against a wall throughout most of the movie. The second one I gave a free movie pass to see "Star Trek", but sneaked my way into "Trannies 2" instead. I spent most of the second movie raking my fingernails across my face. No one should watch these two movies back to back, it's six hours of your life you will never get back ever again.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 4:08pm
Hilarious post posted on IMDb but taken down. It's worth the time to read:

Are there honestly 46 new Transformers in the movie?

I have no ****ing clue. It's impossible to tell most of them apart except for Optimus and the Racist Twins (there's another yellow Autobot who I constantly thought was Bumblebee). There could be 46, or there could be 12. I honestly would believe 12 if someone had said that.

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?

The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

What?

Yeah. The Decepticons aren't apparently doing anything, then the Autobots show up, the Decepticons run for their goddamn lives, and the Autobots hunt them down and brutally murder them. It's kind of weird.


Why is the U.S. military helping them?

Supposedly to help keep the Transformers a secret from the public. Although since the climax of the last film was a massive firefight involving 50-foot robots and took place over five miles of downtown Los Angeles and the beginning of this film wrecks several miles of Shanghai, China, they seem to be incredibly ****ty at their job.

How does the U.S. military help them?

Well, not at all, actually. They just kind of come along with guns and stuff, and act like they're going to help, but the Autobots do all the work.

Why is the U.S. military in this movie at all, then?

Because Michael Bay has a huge erection for jets and tanks and aircraft carriers and considers giant robots only a necessary evil for the film. At least 15 full minutes of the film's 150-minute run time is nothing but footage of jets and tanks and planes without any robots or actual action whatsoever.

How is Sam Witwicky dragged back into the fight?

Well, he finds a fragment of the Allspark shard. You know, the Allspark that he spent all last movie being told he shouldn't give to Megatron, but when he gave it to Megatron, it killed Megatron. That one. Anyways, the shard makes the Beef see symbols and act like more of an spaz than usual.

So the Decepticons want the shard? Why?

Uh... to bring Megatron back to life?

What?

That's what they said.

But the Allspark killed Megatron in the first movie.

Yes.

...and now it can also bring him back to life.

It's very powerful, this Allspark.

Uh-huh. So what's their plan to get it?

They send a small R/C car who talks like Joe Pesci in Casino to get it.

Shouldn't they have sent Starscream or somebody?

Look, there's another Allspark shard and get that one anyways, so it doesn't matter.

Well, then why do they give a **** about Sam?

The symbols. In his head. That the shard of the Allspark gave him.

They weren't in the other shard?

Apparently not.

So how do the Decepticons plan to get the symbols, I guess?

Well, the Decepticons have very cunningly created a hot chick robot who they enrolled in the same college and put in the same astronomy class as Sam. And they made her a huge slut.

Wait.

Waiting.

There's a slutty Decepticon?

Yeah, she's a real ho. The Decepticons apparently have an incredibly powerful slut-making program, because she has it down, man. Anyways--

Didn't Sam touch the shard and get the symbols stuck in his head on his first day of college?

Yes.

So the Decepticons made a slutty robot to attend his college and enrolled her in classes and put her in on-campus housing just in case Sam ended up being important at some point in the future?

Apparently. It was an elaborate plan, but it sure paid off.

How so?

Well, not at all. The slut-bot made out with him for a little bit then immediately tried to kill him, neither for any apparent motive or gain.

It sounds preposterous.

Doesn't matter, because the Decepticons use the shard piece they do have to resurrect Megatron! He's back! Ooo! Scary!

Why is this scary? All he wanted was the Allspark, and now it's gone.

...because he has a boss! He's called the Fallen, because he's so evil! He has an evil plan to use a machine on Earth to blow up the sun and make energon! Or something! It's not very clear.

Now you're just making **** up as you go along, aren't you?

Best not to think too much about it. Anyways, the symbols in the Beef's head are a map to where this machine exists, so the hunt is on and Sam shortly is captured by other, less slutty Decepticons in one of the many instances where Bumblebee inexplicably abandons the Beef so he can conveniently be in trouble.
Then a robot called the Doctor who speaks gibberish with a German accent shoves things up Shia's nose and gets the symbols.

That's that, then, right? The Decepticons win?

No! Because Optimus Prime saves Sam before they cut off his head, which has another treasure inside!

Really? What is that?

No one really bothers to explain this, actually. Suffice to say, the Decepticons continue to want Sam. Oh, then Optimus Prime fights three Decepticons at once and dies.

Where the hell were the other Autobots during this fight?

I don't know. They were with him before the fight, but then they disappear and show up right after he dies. But they appear sad about Optimus dying. Marginally. I mean, they don't get any screen time or dialogue to convey any feelings or anything, but there's some sad music playing for a little bit afterwards. I assume this means the robots that are off-screen are grieving.

Well, if one shard brought Megatron back to life, can't Sam just use his shard piece to resurrect Optimus?

Yes. He could.

...
...

Well?

He doesn't.

Why not?

I'm not sure exactly.

Then what the hell does he do?

He decides get those symbols that were in his head translated to figure out what the Fallen's up to.

Which Autobot does the translating?

Err... none of them. Actually, it's John Turturro.

What. The ****.

Yeah, since he was laid off from his super-secret government agent job, he now works in a NY deli and runs a super-popular Transformers conspiracy theory website. Like ya do.

And why couldn't an Autobot translate these symbols?

Because Bumblebee is mute and the Racist Twins are poor black robots from the slums of Cybertron who never learned how to read. It's a sad commentary on Cybertronian society. Like The Wire, actually.

Where the hell are the other Autobots?

I don't know. Away. They seem to be unable to be reached. They're probably grieving about Optimnus still. Clearly, John Turturro is the reasonable solution here.

So Turturro translates the symbols.

No, that would be silly. He does, in an incredibly bizarre series of connect-the-dots, lead them to Jetfire, an elderly and deceased Transformers whose corpse is hanging out in the Air & Space Museum.

What good is he dead?!

Ah! Remember the shard? Sam uses it to bring Jetfire back to life!

Not Optimus?

No! This way, Sam can get the symbols translated... so he can, er... find the ancient machine... that can, uh... possibly bring Optimus back to life.

You have to ****ing be kidding me.

Moving on! Jetfire teleports everyone to Egypt, including some of the missing Autobots --

Wait, what? Teleports?

Yes, teleports.

Transformers don't teleport.

Jetfire does.

But -- wait a second, he's a ****ing jet. He could fly everybody to Egypt, right? And that would make perfect sense for both the character and the franchise!

Well, I guess so. But he chooses not to. The point is Jetfire teleports them all to Egypt where he explains that there used to be 7 or 8 Primes, and they traveled around the galaxy blowing up suns for energon. But they never did it on planets with life. Well, they had set the machine up on Earth and not noticed all the life running around, and one of the Primes just said **** it, let's do it anyways. This was evil, so they called that Prime the Fallen and beat the **** out of him although he escaped.

Okay...

So that other mysterious reason that the Decepticons wanted Sam's brain? It's because it contains some very vague clues about the Matrix of Leacdership, which is the device that turns on the sun-exploding machine. The Fallen needs the Matrix to blow up the sun and get his Energon.

Hold on. That's what the Matrix of Leadership does in the movie?

Yes. Works the sun-exploding machine.

I'm fuzzy on how "Leadership" covers that.

I didn't name it. But it does sound a little nicer than "Matrix of Blowing Up the Goddamn Sun." If I may continue, in order to protect the Earth, the 6-7 other Prime hid the Matrix on Earth and made a tomb with their own bodies. Isn't that cool?

...
...

No. No it is not. If they wanted to protect Earth, why did they leave the Matrix on the planet? They're a space-faring race, they could have hid it anywhere in galaxy! Second of all, what the **** does making a tomb of their own bodies do? Shouldn't they have stayed alive to protect the Matrix? Or finish off the Fallen? Or just not die and leave Earth and the entire Transformer race in jeopardy?

Uh...

And why hide the Matrix at all? Don't they need Energon to survive? Didn't they say they go to other lifeless planets? These idiot Primes just doomed their whole species for no ****ing reason whatsoever! No wonder the Decepticons are so pissed.

...ahem. Eventually, Sam and crew find the Matrix, which instantly crumbles into dust. Sam puts the dust in a sock because he thinks it will bring Optimus back to life.

Grr.

What follows is the most spectacular part of the movie, as Sam and Mikaela try to run the several miles back to the military camp during a massive Decepticon attack where the military has dropped Optimus Prime's corpse.

Why is that awesome? They could drive back in one of the Autobots and be there in a minute or two.

They don't do that.

What?

They walk.

Of course they do. And I assume the Autobots just mysteriously disappear again until a second before a Decepticon is about to kill Sam.

Yes. Exactly.

I am already incredibly sick of this movie, and I'm just typing questions about it. Sam resurrects Optimus, Optimus kills the Fallen, end of story, right?

Pretty close. Sam dies, though.

Really?

Yeah, for a little while. But then the Transformers in heaven send him back because he still has work to do.

**** you.

I'm serious.

**** you. There's no way.

It's true. The 6-7 Primes are there in the clouds like Mufasa's head in The Lion King, and tell Sam he's awesome and he needs to live again so he can bring Optimus back to life.

I may be ill.

Then Jetfire appears out of nowhere and rips out his own heart right in front of Optimus to give him his elderly old robot powers. This makes Optimus into a flying badass who defeats the Megatron and Starscream and the Fallen in a little less than two minutes. After the last 30 minutes of the movie have been nothing but explosions -- not all of which have any obvious causes -- it's a bit disappointing.

Anything else you want to add?

Well, only that although Sam jams the Matrix of Leadership into Optimus Prime's chest to resurrect him, a Decepticon takes it out like 10 seconds later and Optimus is fine. Just a little weird, is all.

Can you give me any reason I would want to see this film in theaters?

I can't answer every question, man.

BONUS ROUND!

So it's not as bad as ****ting your pants?

Marginally. I honestly had to make a pro and con list to figure it out.

Why on earth would anyone make a film about giant robots but have myriad scenes of some random douchebag's first day of college?

I don't have the faintest clue.

Could there have been more trite, less inspired song for Bumblebee to play when Sam says he's going to college than The Pointer Sisters' "I'm So Excited"?

No. No there couldn't.

Why can't Bumblebee talk, but the other Autobots can?

Because Bumblebee is retarded, but in a Sling Blade kind of a way. This explains how he kills the living **** out of a Decepticon later.

Why does Sam's mom buy and consume a pot brownie?

Well, Sam's mom was in a coma for the last 30+ years, which explains how she had never heard of marijuana, and why she didn't understand the consequences of eating it even after her husband specifically told her it was a pot brownie (Sam was unfortunately conceived and born during this period). A better question is why any college student in America would be selling pot brownies at an on-campus bake sale, let alone to a middle-aged woman.

A lot was made of how Shia the Beef's hand injury was written into the film. How was this done?

Well, sometimes Shia had a huge bandage on his hand, and sometimes he didn't.

That doesn't sound "written in" at all.

Well, no actual words are used to explain it. It might be more accurate to say it "shows up sometimes."

Why would a robot need to fart, pee, or vomit? And why would it need testicles?

Michael Bay does not understand what a robot is.

What is the point of the character of Sam's college roommate, and why the **** does he stay for the entirety of the movie?

I have no clue. He's not comedy relief, because that's covered by 90% of the Transformers themselves. He technically leads the Beef to John Turturro, but surely there could have been another way to do that. Besides, Turturro just leads them to Jetfire anyways. It's all extraneous.

Why can only a Prime kill the Fallen? Why can Jetfire teleport? Why can the Fallen wave a staff and make **** fly around? Why do actual cars and Autobots get sucked into Devastator's maw, but John Turturro and that other kid can run around?

Because... because **** YOU, that's why.

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.

If you had to pick a single scene that exemplifies Michael Bay's utter disdain for story and continuity, what would it be?

When five Decepticons sink to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve Megatron's corpse. A submarine tracks five "subjects" going down, and when they get there, one of the Decepticons is killed to give parts to Megatron. 5 -1 +1 = 5, right? No, because the sub somehow tracks "six" subjects coming up. Not only is this very basic math, this is the simplest of script errors. It could not possibly have been more than one page apart in the script. And yet Michael Bay either didn't care to notice or didn't give a ****. "Math? Math is for pus**es. My movies are about **** blowing up, man."

Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?

"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 01 2009 at 6:18pm

^If that rant doesn't make a case for this being the Worst Movie of 2009, I don't know what will.^

If it still doesn't, how about this, an article about the 10 most gaping plot holes of the movie.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-questions.html - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-question s.html

Yes, I have to agree with #1 the most. In this day and age of MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, etc. how the hell is any goverment going to cover up giant robots fighting in the middle of a highway where any one with a video camera or iPhone can film it and download it online?! What is the goverment going to do, shut off the entire Internet?!  Michael Bay really must think all of America has ADHD as bad as his own to think we will shallow a bullsh*t filled story as this one.

Oh, no, wait ... based on the B.O. numbers, most of America has.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 02 2009 at 6:18am
Wow... it's REALLY hard to ignore posts that take up an entire page of their own. And yet, I will.

But we do have to apply the suspension of disbelief to these kind of movies... if we think realistically about how fast news can travel around the world, we're going to ruin EVERY movie we're ever going to see again. Which is going to be hard, because yea, the mythic nature of storytelling is really hard to do when someone can always call BS.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 03 2009 at 2:22pm
Why are you going to ignore my post? I liked the movie, but I found the "essay" hilarious...


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 05 2009 at 5:53am

I just saw that "Transformers 2" has made $300 in just two weeks. Now excuse me while I put a bucket over my head and go bang my head against a wall.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 05 2009 at 7:40am
I might put a bucket on my head and then just start shooting until I get all the way through to the other side.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 05 2009 at 4:54pm
Even though I liked the film, I do agree that I don't like that T2 is making this much money. I mean, I think UP is the best film of 2009 so far, and T2 passed it like in a week. Even I find that depressing.


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 07 2009 at 9:04am

I don't know what's worse, the fact "Trannies 2" made more money in two weeks than "Star Trek" did in two or three months, or the fact you nicknamed the movie "T2", the same nickname of "Terminator 2".

Please don't confuse the two like that! "Terminator 2" actually had a director who had talent (and who knew how to properly tell a story WHILE also using explosions and CGI).   



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: July 08 2009 at 12:13am
I am hoping for Shia Labeouf nomination. Vote please, this kid very much away is automatically fainting, that how large an actor. Though no, it would be necessary to put it back to its place. 

-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: July 18 2009 at 6:02pm
I like kept on seeing this movie and there are many problems about it, though my younger sister said that it had too much and I was like, well, there's nothing wrong it that only if they overdue it too much. The BIG problem: it's too long, too dull, too boring. There's like a lot of footage that they could have edited out, but then again, that's just another example of Hollywood screwing up movies. Here's what I can say, if you're going to make multiple nominations for this movie, give this one a nod for Worst Director for Michael Bay. One problem with him is that he tends to screw up a lot of movies we go see.

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 8:23am
I get the sense, at least among our furor and hatred, that Michael Bay has a legitimate shot this year. Although I think Bruckheimer is taking credit for G-Force, and Mummyguy has that GI Joe movie. But Bay certainly deserves a nomination.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: July 22 2009 at 2:57pm
Michael Bay's been nominated three times, twice for Worst Director for Armageddon and Pearl Harbor, never won those two.

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 22 2009 at 4:21pm
I strongly advise a Michael Bay sweep this year.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 26 2009 at 7:42am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I strongly advise a Michael Bay sweep this year.

AGREED! And he should also get some kind of Worst Director of the Past 30 Years award as well.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: July 26 2009 at 8:12am
I know no one's going to agree with me, but Uwe IS a genius compared to Michael Bay. And Mummyguy.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 3:52am

Yeah, but that is a very hard sell. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I know no one's going to agree with me, but Uwe IS a genius compared to Michael Bay. And Mummyguy.

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 28 2009 at 6:31pm
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/509793 - Very late but fun flash review of Trannies Deuce

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 29 2009 at 5:05am

To this day, I refuse to give Bay any credit for how good "The Rock" might have been. Yes, I have seen it, and it is one of Bay's better movies -- even though it's still full of all his trademark cliche's. And yeah, that flash review explains it all, as far as I'm concerned. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/509793 - Very late but fun flash review of Trannies Deuce



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 30 2009 at 6:05pm
I'm not going to argue against it, but The Rock never really did anything for me. I got bored watching it and never made it all the way through. Maybe it was good, maybe it wasn't, it didn't do it for me.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 31 2009 at 1:43pm

I read this blog and it sums up what's wrong with "Transformers 2" and H-Wood movies in general these days:

"There is a trend in Hollywood where if a movie does well a sequel is a MUST. The director seems to be given a blank check, and up to 3 hours of screen time, but is given a production schedual of a few months. This is becoming a formula for disaster, and movie goers favorite titles are being SCREWED by this kind of Hollywood bureaucracy.

Other awesome movies plagued by this formula: Men In Black, Pirates of the Caribean, The Matrix, The Mummy, Spider Man, Jurassic Park, Speed, Terminator (3), X-Men(3). Plenty more I'm sure.

Filmakers need to drill it into their subconcious that big budgets and special effects aren't the magic formula for a good movie."

In a nutshell, studios are banking on that fans of the first movie will blindly see the second movie no matter how crappy it is. And "Trannies 2" pretty much proved them right!



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: September 01 2009 at 3:14am

I have to disagree, The Mummy was as far from an awesome movie as they come.

But yea, this guy's right. And as much blame as we heap on the film-makers out there, I think we need to start blaming the movie-goers more often. Because these moronic, horrible, time-wasting, money-wasting, brain-wasting movies being churned out like they came from McDonald's own slaughterhouse are still making TONS of money, because TONS of people go to see them.
If this were politics, people would be electing Bush to a third term, plus a few Sarah Palins, and some Rod Blagojeviches, and maybe even some Carrot-top while we're at it.

And they're not complaining about it either, they're gobbling it up like not only isn't it that bad, but like it's good.



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 7:39am
Looks like Michael Bay has discovered a way to put his love of exploiting
women to practice: directing Victoria's Secret ads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNScRM_NzLI


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by movieman

Looks like Michael Bay has discovered a way to put his love of exploiting
women to practice: directing Victoria's Secret ads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNScRM_NzLI


I think ads like this are ideal for what Bay's style is. Just short, full of eye candy and distractions, and no plot whatsoever. But no, he just had to crossover to making 3 hour long music videos, er, I mean major motion picture making.

Oh, who am I kidding? Bay makes 3 hour long music videos and nothing else.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: January 04 2010 at 1:25pm
That Peter Travers, that stuck-up idiot, has just named Transformers 1 and 2 Worst Movie of the Decade.  Why did he do this?  Because he has absolutely no appreciation for visual effects and is prejudiced towards Michael Bay.  Furthermore, his other nominees for the award are statistically worse than the Transformers films, therefore his result defies reality.  Congratulations, Peter Travers.  You just won the technical Razzie award for Most Heartless Movie Critic.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: January 04 2010 at 1:52pm
I think Trannies gets credit more for their RECENTNESS, and success-to-crap ratio. Perhaps not the worst of the decade, but they sure did the most to ruin my childhood memories.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 04 2010 at 3:58pm

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

That Peter Travers, that stuck-up idiot, has just named Transformers 1 and 2 Worst Movie of the Decade.  Why did he do this?  Because he has absolutely no appreciation for visual effects and is prejudiced towards Michael Bay.  Furthermore, his other nominees for the award are statistically worse than the Transformers films, therefore his result defies reality.  Congratulations, Peter Travers.  You just won the technical Razzie award for Most Heartless Movie Critic.

And I couldn't disagree with you more! Thank you, Peter Travers, thank you! As far as I'm concerned, you have replaced Roger Ebert as the best mainstream film critic out there!

Visual effects? Please, half the time I didn't even know what I was looking at during those movies. James Cameron on the other hand, did it right and took CGi to the next level ... and with a story and themes to back it up.

And why shouldn't critics hate Michael Bay? The man is a living example of what's wrong with Hollywood. No talent or vision what so ever! He just pulls the same bag of tricks in every movie he does. Explosions here, a woman in her underwear there, Hummer car here, and repeat. He makes the same damn movie every damn time!

And I agree with dEd, because it's a personal victory for us children of the 80s who had to sit back and watch Bay wipe his backside with our childhood memories, with such nonsense as Transformers peeing on humans or having testicles.

Now sure, there were worst movies this past decade, but guess what, they got Razzied. The same can't be said about "Trannies 2"; not yet. I mean there was a ton of crap in 2009, and the Worst Picture "prize" is every much up for grabs. So while Miguel may not agree with this choice, I welcome it with open arms, because it's at least one mainsteam stink on the already rich, creamy, tar-like stool that were those two 3-hour long music videos that tried to past themseleves off as movies! Once again, thank you, Peter Travers, thank you!



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 05 2010 at 10:30am
Originally posted by Michaels

Visual effects? Please, half the time I didn't even know what I was looking at during those movies. James Cameron on the other hand, did it right and took CGi to the next level ... and with a story and themes to back it up.

Ummm...the visual effects in TF1 and 2 look exceptionally brilliant to me. The detail put into almost everything is commendable to say the least.

And why shouldn't critics hate Michael Bay? The man is a living example of what's wrong with Hollywood. No talent or vision what so ever! He just pulls the same bag of tricks in every movie he does. Explosions here, a woman in her underwear there, Hummer car here, and repeat. He makes the same damn movie every damn time!

I disagree. He has talent. He knows how to handle big movies and it's obvious he has a big imagination. I saw the making of documentary in the TF2 DVD that is over 2 hours long and that shows Bay knows what he's doing.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 05 2010 at 2:55pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Ummm...the visual effects in TF1 and 2 look exceptionally brilliant to me. The detail put into almost everything is commendable to say the least.

Oh sure, the Transformers were "detailed" and "shiny", but what was among the #1 pet peeve of anyone who saw the movie? NO ONE COULD TELL ONE ROBOT FROM ANOTHER! Seriously, everyone looked the same except for Optimus and Bumblebee, and that's only be cause of their colors! Now compare that to "Avatar" in which you completely forget you're looking at CGI characters and swear you're looking at actual aliens that James Cameron filmed. There is no comparison.

I disagree. He has talent. He knows how to handle big movies and it's obvious he has a big imagination. I saw the making of documentary in the TF2 DVD that is over 2 hours long and that shows Bay knows what he's doing.

You're kidding, right? I dare you to watch as many of his movies in a row and then tell me again that he has a big imaginantion. The man has a set formula for his movies and he uses it for every single one of them. And what is this using DVD extras as an excuse to back up a director's talent?! Do you seriously think they are going to show the director NOT knowing how to direct? Like there's going to be a studio head who goes "Hey, I have a good idea, let's add a scene in the DVD extras showing (insert director's name here) not knowing how to block a scene! That will prove to the world that filmmaking is a serious business and that we only hire people who know what they are doing!".

Oh sure, Bay knows how to yell "action" and "cut" and how to film explosions and car chases, but does he have a clue how to tell a good story? How's this for an answer:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-questions.html - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-question s.html

And if Bay has such an "imagination", why is it when he not making the same action movie over and over again, he spends his time and money remaking 70s and 80s horrors movies? Oh yeah, that's sounds a man full of "imagination". Conclusion: you want a blockbuster making, creative, full of imagination director, you look to James Cameron. You want a glossy, dumb, brainless, 3 hour long music video that's full of pretty colors and not much else, you look to Michael Bay.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: January 06 2010 at 11:53am
If you blow enough money, (or.... nvm, I'll avoid that Michael Bay joke) you can make anything look good.
Michael Bay is talented in the sense that he knows what people like to see. It's kind of like calling the people who work in the Hostess factories good cooks because they make Twinkies.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 06 2010 at 1:23pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

If you blow enough money, (or.... nvm, I'll avoid that Michael Bay joke) you can make anything look good.
Michael Bay is talented in the sense that he knows what people like to see. It's kind of like calling the people who work in the Hostess factories good cooks because they make Twinkies.

Exactly. He knows fans like pretty thing and stuff blowing up, and cars chasing each other, and so that's ALL he ever films. I mean, if Spielberg filmed nothing but movies about aliens befriending humans because "ET" was such a success, would he still be the greatest commerical filmmaker?



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: January 08 2010 at 9:30am
Someone needs to paint Elvis on velvet. It'd just be nice if less people bought it.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 6:56pm
What are the odds of Revenge of the Fallen sweeping the awards like I Know Who Killed Me in 2007 or Battlefield Earth in 2000?

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Spt. 12: Dolphin Tale 2, Search Party. Spt. 19: The Maze Runner.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

What are the odds of Revenge of the Fallen sweeping the awards like I Know Who Killed Me in 2007 or Battlefield Earth in 2000?
Very, very, very, VERY good. Or, if you would ... berry, berry, berry, BERRY good.


Posted By: Film Cricket
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 9:39pm
I registered so I could weigh in on this movie in particular.  I have a part-time, just-for-the-money job in the electronics department at the local Wal-Mart.  When Trannies, Too opened I avoided it at all costs, and didn't see a frame of the actual movie (except TV and theatre trailers) until it was on DVD and I could borrow my brother's copy to watch at home.  I mean, I wasn't actually going to pay for it was I?  But oh boy, did I pay for it.  I got through an hour before I took it back to my brothers and banished it forever from my home.  I was getting physically ill from the fact that the camera wouldn't stop moving.  I have a feeling no one can explain the plot to me without a long-winded rant filled with pointless fan-boy details.  The "movie" wouldn't slow down to explain who the characters were, why we should care for or hate them, and what exactly it was they were doing.

Now, you say, I didn't watch all of it so I have no right to comment on it, right?  Wrong.  I survived two weeks of this piece of parasitic excrement playing on the HDTV wall at Wal-Mart.  Most of my shifts I was working mere feet from the cacophonous sh*tstorm of Trannies, Too.  For up to eight hours a day.  I am now familiar with every frame, sound effect and line of dialogue of Trannies, Too.  It's a fan-boy's wet dream: a hugely successful FX cinematic massacre that only fan-boys "get" because it would take a Dungeons and Dragons-sized book to explain it, and God knows fan-boys have that kind of time on their hands.

Trannies, Too benefited from the "big movie" audience that still exists and has made the deeply-flawed Avatar the biggest grossing movie of all time (yes, I know about inflation and Gone With The Wind, but facts are facts.)  This audience, which consists of the usual pimple-faces, fat bearded no-lifes, desperately lonely middle-aged women well past their physical prime, and twenty-something single guys with no girlfriends, is easily fooled by the smokescreens Hollywood and it's media subsidiaries puts up to dupe them into believing crap=quality, and 2+2=5.  These are two of their mantras:

1. Trannies, Too is a misunderstood masterpiece panned by critics resentful of Michael Bay's success.
2. Trannies, Too's box office success is because it is what the movie-going public wants to see.

There's a bit of truth to the second statement, and the first is a revision of a popular idea that a movie must be good because critics hate it.  But to understand the depressing reality of North American consumerism, you have to work in a place like a Wal-Mart electronics department for an extended period of time, at least a year so you get the feel of all the different seasons of movie releases.  DVD and Blu-Ray releases are a clockwork industry; you never go too long without some over-hyped piece of sh*t being given a huge marketing campaign for it's release.  Customers of course don't remember when you had to wait in the reservation queue at the local VHS rental store to see a new release at all.  With Trannies, Too, on it's first day of release on DVD and Blu-Ray, a lot of customers sounded like their life depended on getting a copy.  Then I wondered why someone would kill themselves over a "movie" that isn't even a movie.  So now it comes to why I think Trannies, Too may be the end of fan-boys in general.

With Trannies, Too, fan-boys are backed into a corner.  They can't defend the quality of the movie, so all they have left is it's financial success.  I mean, I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I will concede that the series deserves the critical acclaim it's getting (especially the most recent movie.)  I would concede that Trannies, Too deserved better if I actually thought it was a good movie, even if I wasn't a fan of the Transformers.  That's just the kind of objective, big-hearted guy I am.

Could it be that in the future movies will have to be good, with sharp, intelligent writing and competent direction to be considered a success, even if the movie makes the most money of all time?  Trannies, Too, proved that the big-movie audience will still obediently line up like army ants for anything that resembles the kind of cultural event that accompanied Star Wars or Harry Potter.  When they can gobble it up like heroin on a legal format or download it illegally, they will do so, usually without thinking, and I have lots of anecdotal testimony to that fact.  No one I talked to on the first week of it's DVD release even mentioned that they thought it was a good movie.  They needed it because, well, everyone else was getting it, the TV told them they should get it, and they wanted a big blow-em-up CGI FX Blu-Ray to justify to themselves the thousands of dollars they spent on their HDTV and home theatre (a lot of customers said that very thing almost to the letter!)

I still don't know what the plot to Trannies, Too was, and I respect my brain too much to try to wrap it around some poorly-written Wiki nonsense.  If you've made it this far, thanks!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 5:00am
What Film Cricket said above is quite possibly one of the best reviews of "Transformers 2" I have ever read.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 12:50pm
I just saw the trailer for "Transformers: War For Cybertron". Holy f***ing s***! It makes "Bayformers" look even worse  by comparison! THIS is what the movies should have been!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFZrL0x63c8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFZrL0x63c8


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 5:57pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by GTAHater767

What are the odds of Revenge of the Fallen sweeping the awards like I Know Who Killed Me in 2007 or Battlefield Earth in 2000?
Very, very, very, VERY good. Or, if you would ... berry, berry, berry, BERRY good.
 
 
Might be a dead heat between this POS and Twilight:NM
 
EDIT: I stand corrected. Twilight:NM didn't receive even one nomination! Amazing . . . it shows it was a berry berry good (or bad) year for Razzie-worthy dreck . . . .


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

 
EDIT: I stand corrected. Twilight:NM didn't receive even one nomination! Amazing . . . it shows it was a berry berry good (or bad) year for Razzie-worthy dreck . . . .
Actually, I think it's up for 4 Razzies: Supporting Actor, On-Screen Couple, Sequel, and I think Screenplay.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: kennyshafard
Date Posted: February 24 2010 at 2:36am
It was lengthy, pointless, full-of-special-effects movie like thing. 

-------------
http://www.ticketmy.com/theater-tickets/Love-And-Other-Demons/index.php - Love And Other Demons Tickets


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 26 2010 at 8:18pm
Originally posted by kennyshafard

It was lengthy, pointless, full-of-special-effects movie like thing. 
Yes it was. Yes it was.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: March 01 2010 at 11:03am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

 
EDIT: I stand corrected. Twilight:NM didn't receive even one nomination! Amazing . . . it shows it was a berry berry good (or bad) year for Razzie-worthy dreck . . . .
Actually, I think it's up for 4 Razzies: Supporting Actor, On-Screen Couple, Sequel, and I think Screenplay.
Huh. It's not mentioned at all in the press release; I need to find the definitive list

-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 01 2010 at 11:33am
Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

Huh. It's not mentioned at all in the press release; I need to find the definitive list
If anything, it will win Worst Supporting Actor (much to Miguel's delight), while "Bayformers 2" will win everything else (much to MY delight)!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Merg
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 11:03am
Despite all your whine little ignorant razzie BS and giving Revenge of the Fallen the award for worst picture of the year, I do give you some credit for certain movies like Battlefield Earth... but that is all I can give you.
 
If you honestly think Revenge of the Fallen was the worst film, then I would hate to see what you call a good film. You must have had a very unhappy childhood to not love seeing something from your childhood being reborn for the new generations because Transformers was just awesome then and now.
 
Let me explain. Revenge was not so much for character development as it was for furthering the story of Transformers, which it did very well. Yes, they spent lots of money to make it look awesome and there were parts that were not great but the overall effect of Revenge of the Fallen fulfilled exactly what it was designed for, providing bang for your buck.
 
The story was pretty typical for Transformers, Decepticons get the upper hand only to have the Autobots win out in the end. Classic Transformers all the way.
 
So you whiny little agry girls can complain about this "fan-boy" bashing your completely ignorant choice, but really, your complaints are just born out of jealousy of a tried and true formula put to a theme of your youth and turning it into an even bigger money-maker.
 
Revenge of the Fallen was one of the best movies of the year. If you think this movie was worse than G.I. Joe (bad acting, bad cgi, bad script, just about bad everything), you are sadly mistaken and have no clue was to what a good movie is. Oh, and your berry, berry good comments... wow, if you think that is a quality line... it explains everything about why Hollywood mostly thinks of you as a joke and why people here have names like burnhollywoodburn... angry much over your rejection by Hollywood? Get a clue and a life.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 11:38am
*cough*troll*cough*hater*if you don't like our choices why bother posting here*cough*.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 12:48pm
Yet again another Angry ( Did you see that "Merg" I put a "N" in "Angry" instead of "Agry", there is a free spell checker you can use the next time you postWink) Stallone Supporter...whoops, sorry I meant Bay Supporter (Sorry guys, I get these people confused because it sounds like they all come from the same place) who was not happy with the Majority of our Voting MembershipCry. Well Merg, I hate to tell you that I was alone this year because my Horse (Land of the Lost) was in the Minority and did not amply get the justice it deserved. By far, Trannies Too (As it is known here) was a way better movie on so many levels than the "Re-imaged" Land of The lost. I honestly think that Trannies Too won because sooooo many more people saw it than Land of The Lost (I really wish I had been one of those people, I sometime's still go take a shower with just thinking of the movie and feeling so unclean!!!Dead). I seriously bet if the same amount of people who saw Trannies Too had seen the Land of the Losers (What I call this movie) it may have been a different story last night. But we must accept what was and move on, because in life not everybody is going to hold your own personal opion (In fact sometimes everybody's opion may differ from yours).

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 1:03pm
Hmmm..."agry (sic) little girls"...Hey IT...do you still have the list of all the things we have been called now? It got so long I lost track.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 2:22pm
That's right! As Wendy Testaburger once said, [when you get defeated in a competition,] you can't hold it against the person who won, because that's the only way you really lose.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Spt. 12: Dolphin Tale 2, Search Party. Spt. 19: The Maze Runner.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Hmmm..."agry (sic) little girls"...Hey IT...do you still have the list of all the things we have been called now? It got so long I lost track.
You would think for all the years I have been a member (Going on 5) I would have kept a ledger of all those blessed knuckleheads who come to the defense of thier wrongley tarnished idols who drop thier load and don't even stay for dinner or dessert! Anyways, If I kept such a journal I would have already crashed my homeserver from the overload long ago. However, there have been some good ones over the years who have proven very amusing (#1 Sly Fan Anybody) and given you and me much fun (I going out on a limb and throw John's name as well) along with our esteemed HeadRazzBerry. I got to admit I don't think I've ever remembered being called a "little agry girl" before (Don't think anybody else at this forum has either) LOL.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 6:27pm

As with all the others, now forgotten (and I refuse to take the next three months to go back and try to look all of them up) I will wear the title of "angry little girl" with pride.

There is one other point I want to make to Merg: Just because I loved Mr. Potato Head as a child, doesn't mean I want to see Mr. Potato Head The Motion Picture....followed by 8 lame sequels. Some beloved things from our childhood are best left there, as precious memories. 

Incidentally, I didn't vote for Trannies 2, but the majority spoke. And I think it was a deserving choice.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken



Print Page | Close Window