Transformers: Age of Extinction

[Iroscato]

Another of the many, many gripes I have with these movies is the swearing. Now please let me stress, I myself swear a LOT, and I have no problem with it in general. But Transformers is, at the end of the day, made for kids - a cartoon show about alien robots that turn into vehicles, and have cool fights and such. So why are the movies chock-full of scenes like Sam screaming "SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT" when being chased by the Decepticon (I forget his name), or John Malkovich's character declaring Bumblebee to be "Fuckin' awesome"?
Bay attempts, feebly, to make these films so very grandiose and epic, but throws in stupid and completely unnecessary shit as often as possible. If he removed about 70% of the toilet humour, cut down the swearing to an occasional mild expletive and made the action tighter and more focused, then it would look as though he had a clue what he was doing.

[Tribble]

If I were to do a reboot, I would have the first movie be on Cybertron, as we've never really seen it in the live-action films. Here's how I would have it play out:

The movie begins on Cybertron before the Great War starts. There are no Autobots or Decepticons, but instead there is a corrupt government ruling the planet. We see Optimus decide to take the pacifistic non-violent path to solve the problem. Meanwhile Megatron decides that the best approach is to use whatever means necessary. The two of them gather allies, and begin to put their plans into motion. Unlike X-Men First Class though, Optimus and Megatron are never friends - perhaps the two of them meet at some point, but they instantly dislike each other's viewpoints and refuse to "team up". Despite that, when their plans are carried out they end up inadvertently helping each other- Optimus had persuaded large portions of the police/military to lay down their arms, which gave Megatron the opportunity he needed to seize control of the Capital (and execute the leaders). Due to their efforts the government falls. Now the question is: who gets to rule Cybertron?

Optimus and his allies, now calling themselves "Autobots", would like to see a peaceful transition to Democracy. After-all, wasn't the whole point of toppling the government to give power to the people?

However Megatron and his "Decepticons" are outraged at this proposal. From their perspective, why should the power be spread equally? They were the ones who did the dirty work, they were the ones who put their lives on the line and did what had to be done. Don't they deserve the right to rule? Why should the "freeriders" get anything?

When it becomes clear that Megatron isn't going to stop until he has total control over Cybertron and that he will kill anyone who gets in his way, Optimus realises he has no choice but to respond with force to stop him. And thus the Great War between the Autobots and Decepticons begins...

[Tribble]

Hell you can even have the movie explain where the terms "Autobots" and "Decepticons" come from.

The "Auto" in Autobot could be referring to "autonomy"; Thus the Autobots are robots who believe in the right to self-government. I doubt that a great public speaker like Optimus would have come up with the term as it's kinda slang... I'm thinking more along the lines of Bumblebee or HotRod. Optimus adopts it simply because everyone else in his group starts using it.

"Decepticons" could be a derogatory term that the corrupt government came up with for Megatron and his followers. After all, deceptive tactics is one of the things they are known for. Not that Megatron minds; as far as he's concerned, the fact that the government is publically labelling his group is proof that they see him as a real threat, which is a source of pride to him.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Love the idea Tribble, Again, makes for far more compelling and morally interesting story than anything put forward so far... But I would hold off on something like that as a "First" movie.. Something like that you want to know the background and such, why the story itself is important. That would make an excellent "Prequel" movie after say 2 or 3 'Succesful' reboot movies. Although, thinking about it, you may not have to have a whole movie for that, you could do something similar to "Man of Steel" having a "mini" prequel, fleshing out the backstory.

Also I LOVE your descriptions for the root of "Autobots" and "Decepticons" I mean thats brilliant.

[Sidewinder]

Also I LOVE your descriptions for the root of "Autobots" and "Decepticons" I mean thats brilliant.

The explanations were used in the novel Exodus, the graphic novel Autocracy (which also hints the term "Autobot" was actually derived from "Autocracy," and the Autobots were originally enforcers for a corrupt government), and the animated series Transformers: Prime.

[Vendetta]

Missed your post yesterday, but could not agree more with it!
I totally get wanting to make the machines "People like" so that movie audiences are able to get more of a connection with them… But Bay (for the most part) did virtually nothing to drive home the fact they are inorganic life forms, other just calling them "Non Biological Entities" or something. Shoot "Beast Wars"the cartoon did a great job of this when you often had peoples limbs blasted off and removed without them worrying about "bleeding to death"

Making the machines more people-like would require giving them personalities.

And even the people in the Transformers movies didn't have personalities, so the transformers had no chance.

[Metahive]

Bad Boys and Bad Boys II: Satirizes macho cop behavior and all of the problems therein.

Bad Boys a "parody" of douchy macho alpha males? Then I guess most of Bay's films are "parodies" since 90% of the male protagonists there happen to be douchy macho alpha males as well.

This much is obvious. It's also competently directed and shot.

Well, yeah, if you have low standards anyway, and no, it's not "obvious" you arrogant fuck.

It's just so over done. Look at Bad Boys II and the scene where Mike (Will Smith) opens the door to speak with Marcus' daughter's date. He acts like a "gangsta", brandishing his gun and talking hard. It's obscene. Then you have the dynamic between Mike and Marcus, the former's behavior leads the latter to go to therapy to help with his anger. You also have them destroying a portion of the city through their antics and getting off scott free.

None of that is satire. That's basic action movie tropes, especially those from the 80s. See Commando and co. Nothing satirical. Also, black people make asses of themselves for white entertainment? You know, that's not satirical either, that's Stepin' Fetchit.

Simplistic views from a simpleton who doesn't know how to critique art.

Oh, let's see how the master does it!

Armageddon: action movie about people coming together to save the world. It's unlikely this would happen, but it's still a neat thought. Granted, it's very Pro America and the science is wrong (who cares?), but it's strongly acted, has a great sense of drama and humor, and is competently directed and shot.

Wow, quality critique! Armaggedon, great movie because it contains people coming together and doing stuff! Also, generalized praise of direction, acting and humor with no argument put behind it to support this judgement! That's how one does critique in a non-simpleton manner!

Let me see,

MANOS The Hands of Fate got great sense of drama, humor and is comepetently directed and shot!

There, quality critique of JLTuckerian proportions.



Get lost.

[JLTucker]

If if you want, Metahive, I can post screenshot after screenshot to back up my argument about Bays competent direction. I was going to do it when I made that post, but I figured no one would care since it's popular to poop on him.

I can also expand my points on the movies I sloppily defended. would you read it, though? probably not since it would render your trademark tryhard antics useless. We'll see. Let me know if you're interested.

[Parallax]

It's also popular to crap on Uwe Boll. Why? Because he's crap at his job.
Just like Bay is.

[Gandalf]

Has Bay ever said that the Bad Boys films were parodies? I've read him saying that the first one was just a poor script, and that he just wanted "to be entertaining" as opposed to trying to make Schindler's List, but I cant find him saying anything about parody.

[LadyTevar]

I have never been so "meh" at anything Transformers before. I simply cannot get excited over this.

[JLTucker]

Has Bay ever said that the Bad Boys films were parodies? I've read him saying that the first one was just a poor script, and that he just wanted "to be entertaining" as opposed to trying to make Schindler's List, but I cant find him saying anything about parody.

Why would that matter? What he has to say about the movie is irrelevant to my opinion about it.

[Crazedwraith]

Has Bay ever said that the Bad Boys films were parodies? I've read him saying that the first one was just a poor script, and that he just wanted "to be entertaining" as opposed to trying to make Schindler's List, but I cant find him saying anything about parody.

Why would that matter? What he has to say about the movie is irrelevant to my opinion about it.

Because if you want to excuse its over-the-top-ness by calling it satire, it has to be intentionally satirical? That's why I asked you why you thought it was satire rather than Bay's style just being like that in the first place.

Anyway, I think we're running straight into Godwin's Law here. It could be satire it could be playing it straight. Personally I'd lean towards the latter but obviously whatever you want to interpret it as yourself is fine. Everyone's allowed their own opinion right?

[JLTucker]

Because if you want to excuse its over-the-top-ness by calling it satire, it has to be intentionally satirical? That's why I asked you why you thought it was satire rather than Bay's style just being like that in the first place.

Anyway, I think we're running straight into Godwin's Law here. It could be satire it could be playing it straight. Personally I'd lean towards the latter but obviously whatever you want to interpret it as yourself is fine. Everyone's allowed their own opinion right?

Sure. But is it necessary for my interpretation of the work to be in sync with directorial intent? I don't like that because it confines my arguments and opinions to that.

[StarSword]

Anyway, I think we're running straight into Godwin's Law here. It could be satire it could be playing it straight. Personally I'd lean towards the latter but obviously whatever you want to interpret it as yourself is fine. Everyone's allowed their own opinion right?

Um, you want Poe's Law, not Godwin's Law.

[Crazedwraith]

I do indeed. *facepalm* I had it right the first time, then decided not to post and then re-wrote it later. Sight.

Though Godwin's law applies to Bay if we believe Megan Fox.

[Metahive]

Intentional satire makes statements about the themes and people presented in the movie. Unintentional "satire" makes statements about the filmmakers instead. So since Bad Boyz I+II are modern minstrelsy shows, what does that say about Michael Bay?

If if you want, Metahive, I can post screenshot after screenshot to back up my argument about Bays competent direction. I was going to do it when I made that post, but I figured no one would care since it's popular to poop on him.

Putting up screenshots would at the most only prove things about production values and maybe the blocking of a scene but not about direction. So yeah, we are already off to a good start when it comes to your critiquing prowess.

I can also expand my points on the movies I sloppily defended. would you read it, though? probably not since it would render your trademark tryhard antics useless. We'll see. Let me know if you're interested.

That would be futile since you already admitted this:

You're goddamned right I have low standards.

Why should I take cinematic critique seriously from someone who is a self-professed cinematic fast-food junkie? Should have thought harder about your chosen track of apologia beforehand, my son. Bay's movies are either mindless popcorn entertainment or great art. You should have stuck with the former, would have made you look less like a pretentious blowhard.

[JLTucker]

Putting up screenshots would at the most only prove things about production values and maybe the blocking of a scene but not about direction. So yeah, we are already off to a good start when it comes to your critiquing prowess.

False. The director can add input for the the DP to consider. You know, what he wants done, how he wants shots to be framed, etc. That's direction as well. Directing isn't just contained to how actors present the material. It can be everything from telling the gaffer what to do, how the sound should be used, changes to the script need to be made, etc. Try again, please. In your desperation to show how crappy Bay is, you show ignorance across the board.

That would be futile since you already admitted this:

You're goddamned right I have low standards.

Dishonesty may be your next trademark. The full quote for everyone to see:

For aaction movies? You're goddamned right I have low standards. None are high art, which I would prefer. But Hollywood is full of people who don't' want to take a risk with anything.

I have low standards for action movies, and something I should have added, anything released by Hollywood. That's completely different than having low standards across the board, which is what you infer for those who like his movies. Hell, I constantly shit on people here who look forward to the next big comic book movie, crap like Pacific Rim and Godzilla. They add nothing new to the action genre, so low standards must be had. I just think Michael Bay puts more effort into a lot of his work than the morons who adapt comic books and homages to Gojira. Over time my opinions on Transformers have changed. I can't even get through the first one anymore. I like how the action is directed and presented to us, but the elongated mess of a movie just isn't easy to watch. The same goes for its sequels.

Why should I take cinematic critique seriously from someone who is a self-professed cinematic fast-food junkie? Should have thought harder about your chosen track of apologia beforehand, my son. Bay's movies are either mindless popcorn entertainment or great art. You should have stuck with the former, would have made you look less like a pretentious blowhard.

Yep. I'm sure my preference for art house and independent features (as some on this forum may be aware of and can attest to) is indicative of being a "fast-food junkie." Loving those would make me a pretentious blowhard, not finding value in a director who is shamed by those who regurgitate snippets they've read on forums posts written by other neckbeared idiots who pretend they know how to discuss art. I will offer my services of genuine critique to you if you're interested so I can show you how it's done. If you're actually interested in debating Bay's merit in the filmmaking industry, I'd be up for it.

Edit: I will say that Bay has only two great works of art: The Island and Pain & Gain. His other films range from poor to pretty good, but never reah the height of the aforementioned two.

[Vendetta]

I like how the action is directed and presented to us, but the elongated mess of a movie just isn't easy to watch. The same goes for its sequels.

But isn't making sure the movie hangs together in a cohesive watchable whole also a key directorial skill, one which is arguably more important than "competently point camera at thing" especially on big budget productions where there are second unit directors etc who do a lot of that anyway.

So what you're actually saying is that Transformers is a bad movie and the reasons it is bad are things that Michael Bay should have made not bad because that's the director's job.

So he's a bad director.

Maybe he'd be a good second unit director where all he has to do is make sure shots are framed properly and action scenes carry off properly, but he can't put them all together into a movie, or if he ever could he doesn't bother any more.

(PS as much as you rag on superhero movies, most of the modern ones hold together as watchable movies thanks to, yes, competent direction above and beyond "can point camera at thing".)

[NeoGoomba]

I'd hesitate to call The Island a work of art when so much of it was copied from perennial MST3k favorite Parts: The Clonus Horror.

[JLTucker]

I like how the action is directed and presented to us, but the elongated mess of a movie just isn't easy to watch. The same goes for its sequels.

But isn't making sure the movie hangs together in a cohesive watchable whole also a key directorial skill, one which is arguably more important than "competently point camera at thing" especially on big budget productions where there are second unit directors etc who do a lot of that anyway.

So what you're actually saying is that Transformers is a bad movie and the reasons it is bad are things that Michael Bay should have made not bad because that's the director's job.

So he's a bad director.

Sure, for those movies which I think are awful. But I'm not going to say he's a horrible director across the board, which is completely irrational unless I can be demonstrate, with detail, why every movie he's ever made is crap. He made many, many mistakes with Transformers, namely working with horrendous writers and editors. It is his job to oversee the editing as well, so he screwed up tremendously there. I don't think the Transformers series is completely awful, though. I think there are highlights you can watch that show exceptional filmmaking, down to the editing, acting, cinematography, etc.

(PS as much as you rag on superhero movies, most of the modern ones hold together as watchable movies thanks to, yes, competent direction above and beyond "can point camera at thing".)

They hold together, sure, but they aren't really watchable. They are adaptations of comics, are are thus not worth my time. Nolan managed to make that stupid shit watchable, but even then his series is approximately 50% quality. He lost his way with The Dark knight by having an awful script, horrible cinematography, and acting. The highlights include the Joker and the Joker only. The Dark Knight Rises suffers many of the same problems its predecessor does, but it's more enjoyable, I think, even with the convoluted message.

[JLTucker]

But I'm not going to say he's a horrible director across the board, which is completely irrational unless I can be demonstrate, with detail, why every movie he's ever made is crap.

This is a ridiculous request. I''d have to demonstrate the majority of his work is crap.

[Gandalf]

Has Bay ever said that the Bad Boys films were parodies? I've read him saying that the first one was just a poor script, and that he just wanted "to be entertaining" as opposed to trying to make Schindler's List, but I cant find him saying anything about parody.

Why would that matter? What he has to say about the movie is irrelevant to my opinion about it.

As Metahive stated somewhere towards the top of the page, unintentional satire makes statements about the filmmakers which aren't totally positive. If you wish to pursue your argument about Bay being skilled, you may wish to abandon this tangent.

[Cykeisme]

I know you guys are discussing more serious stuff, but I have something to say about fight choreography..

Why do Bay's transformers roll around on the ground so much?
His designs appear to have a low center of gravity relative to their width, which is fine, but they keep doing weird flips and rolling around on the ground when they're engaging both with ranged weapons and physical hand-to-hand.

It's okay sometimes, but it looks silly when it seems to be their general style (they do it a lot).

[Grumman]

Why do Bay's transformers roll around on the ground so much?

Because Bay has no taste.

If a Transformer wants to roll around on the ground, that's fine. But that's what the wheels are for.