Can you trust micheal bay on TF3 not sucking?

[Preston]

Is it wrong that I hope TF3 will suck so I can laugh at it? I like unintentional comedies.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Preston

[Shan Zhu]

Bay here has two widely-seen as 'shit' movies in this franchise under his belt, and is attempting the third. Based solely on the few changes we've heard of, this film should be better than the predecessors.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Lord Shen

[Dr Jackstraw]

Did you miss the wall of shame?Here's the wall of shame:Is it possible that Bay will ascend to the high heavens and return to us mere mortals, face aglow with enlightenment, with a film to rock the ages?I guess.But right now we're placing bets based on probability, and the statistically informed opinion is definite: this horse loses races. Taking stuff away doesn't make a film good unless you have something substantial to add in its place; I doubt Bay's ability to demonstrate much of a "mature" anything in a film (what I read is "more pretentiously and pointlessly dark" along the lines of Prime's death in T2. Why do I think this? Because that's what "mature" meant in his other movies); and the whole problem with this series is its ability to destroy formerly awesome characters, so Shockwave depresses me more than it impresses me.

>he uses rotten tomatoes as a viable source of critique

lolnope

Also Bad Boys and Armageddon were awesome, so that list fails.

[turbojet]

If you shut off your brain and watch it, then it should be fine.

[ZombieEater]

Well, I guess we will just have to find out, now won't we?

Edited June 13, 2011 by ZombieEater

[Facehugger]

Did you miss the wall of shame?

[Nepenthe]

I will agree that Michael Bay doesn't destroy characters or create incompetently-written ones with the Transformers film series, or at least isn't wholly responsible. No, some of that blame belongs to the writers too. What Michael Bay is primarily guilty of is reaming the series through with incompetent film editing and staging; It's atrocious to the point of being a deal breaker.

I mean, who in the world thinks it appropriate to have severe shaky cam film an army battle amongst a group of fighting robots with tens or hundreds of thousands of computer-generated parts that do nothing but help obscure their general silhouettes when they're tangling with each other, with either extraneous lighting or not enough lighting? I mean, what the fuck?

Half the time, I can't see what's even going on between the bots without subsequent rewatches, and it cheapens the battles immensely. When you create a film scene, especially an action sequence, every motion has to read clearly not only for a blow to properly convey its impact immediately but for the entire struggle to have emotional weight and tangible consequences. When your fights are nothing dust clouds, it lowers how much people will invest in the outcome throughout the endeavor simply because they're trying to figure out who's who or what just happened.

And another thing about "shutting your brain off:" the advice is used way too often to defend completely crap film-making. Camp or popcorn films are given too much leeway to be as bad as possible because it's assumed their inherent terribleness naturally has no redeeming value anyways, but that's just not true. There's good popcorn films and then there's bad popcorn films.

A good popcorn film, you ask? How about 300? It's completely romanticized, over-the-top, debases its bad guys by making the leader effeminate and their sexual customs absolutely disgusting, and pretty much craps all over written history. However, it maintains infinitely superior film direction than the Transformers series, a well-translated sense of aesthetic from the comic books, and the actors portray far more convincing and capable characters.

300 is a good film to turn your brain off to. The Transformers series are bad films to turn your brain off to.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Shan Zhu]

Did you miss my point? It's easier to improve upon utter crap, than it is to improve upon spectacular.

This is much like saying it's easier to build a house on a foundation of worms than it is to build on solid concrete. Given a story, it's easier to continue an interesting narrative when the audience enters the story already invested in well-played characters in an interesting universe. Think about Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter V might not have been as well received as the original, but didn't it still benefit from the long legacy of the characters, the standing universe for all its wonder, the black ethos of Voldemort? Sure, it's hard to live up to that all the way, but it would be harder to create it from shit if the original books had been shit.

It is, indeed, harder to outdo the Godfather II than it is to outdo Transformers 2. By the same token, most blood-thirsty dictators probably aren't going to be quite as nasty as Stalin. I don't care how Transformers 3 compares to Transformers 2 because I don't pay for films to keep some mental checklist. I want to know whether I will enjoy the film.

You seem to follow the argument "well some things are changing, so it might not suck!" Fine, I can see optimism. There's always the possibility that the next movie in a given series will blow us away. But I don't operate so generously. Film makers want me to give up my time and my money to see their film, and as such, they need to prove to me that they're capable of making something I like.

I also acknowledge Nepenthe's point: there are a lot of people on this project aside from Bay, and many of the problems with the series prior to this are shared in their responsibility. After a little digging, I even found that T3 would recieve new writers. Fine. But still the question remains: Has anyone on this team with any power proven to us they can make a decent film?

I understand there are, in strange quarters, those peepz who like movies like Armageddon or Bad Boys and who respect Bay's films. Fine, maybe they'll like T3. There are even those who like T2. But I'm not talking about them; I'm offering my perspective, my tastes, my preferences, and those who don't share them will no doubt deal with it.

And given that standpoint, no, no one has given me any reason to think that this film will be worth my money. From my experience, those who've made shit repeatedly will continue to make shit, and any optimism to the contrary is misplaced.

First off; I'll knock the strawman aside and simply say that I never claimed that TF3 would be *good*, only that it won't suck,

Ok, let me rephrase for your semantics. Taking away that which sucks does not make a movie not suck because the absence of interesting material is itself the worst kind of suck.

(Can you sort of see why I didn't phrase it that way?)

(Megan Fox out, new actress in. Twins out, more focus on better characters. Cheesy, goofy humour out, more concentration on mature themes.), I'd say those constitute as substansial, and welcome replacements.

It's this very optimistic assumption that the new actress will be better, that there are better characters to receive focus, or that a lack of humor will lead to mature themes that I don't share. I don't use negative evidence to suggest positive results. It's like saying "Well, dictator 1 is out of power in small country A, therefore things will be dandy!" In fact, there are usually systemic problems that lead dictator 2 to be just as good. Unless there's positive evidence to suggest improvement, the removal of the old regime usually won't yield improvement.

Whole problem? No, that is not the 'whole problem'. The problems are poor plot direction, too much eye candy, crappy humour and bad acting.

Mmmm. Well I suppose Nepenthe provides a good alternative opinion for this.

But from my perspective, none of this bothered me too much In Transformers 2. All of it was there, yeah, but it wasn't worse than, say, the original X-men insofar as it bothered me. What got to me was the absolute absence of any likable, realistic, or relatable characters. Who was I supposed to relate to? That truism-spouting stereotype Optimus Prime? Shia Lebeouf's twelve year old in the body of a college student? His IQ-30 parents? The shit-eating textbook-stereotype government bureaucrat bad guys? One of the ten-thousand other pointless extras? I tolerate a lot of shit from shitty movies. All I need is good characterization. So yes, for me, the destruction of the characters is the whole problem.

Granted, much of this isn't Bay's fault, but I'm not on a Bay vendetta. He is merely the most visible head of a team that's made two crappy movies, and although there have been changes to that team, they have given me no reason as of yet to believe they can take the wreckage of the Titanic and somehow make it float.

So Non. These characters are not compelling. And I refuse to believe they can be made compelling in T3 for the same reason I refuse to believe I'll win the lottery tomorrow. Probability based on prior results is the best mechanism for predicting the future, not blind hope.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Lord Shen

[Tobbii]

*reads topic question*

HAHAHA... Noooooo.

And if it wasn't for the reason that I intend on reviewing it I wouldn't go see it.

[Saint Nathan]

I can trust that things will explode.

I trust that.

[Blue Wisp]

PEOPLE, Y U NO LIKE ROTF.

I loved it. Loved Soundwave and everything about it. Sure it was a slow movie, and it was more Humanformers than Transformers. But still, freaking Soundwave.

BAY, Y U NO HAVE BARRICADE ON THIS.

Love the Dreads. Fuck Yea Crankcase.

[Tobbii]

PEOPLE, Y U NO LIKE ROTF.

I loved it. Loved Soundwave and everything about it. Sure it was a slow movie, and it was more Humanformers than Transformers. But still, freaking Soundwave.

BAY, Y U NO HAVE BARRICADE ON THIS.

Love the Dreads. Fuck Yea Crankcase.

The plot was stupid, the jokes were terrible, the action was almost unwatchable and the main characters can't act to save their lives.

And let's not forget Robot Heaven.

[Dr Jackstraw]

PEOPLE, Y U NO LIKE ROTF.

I loved it. Loved Soundwave and everything about it. Sure it was a slow movie, and it was more Humanformers than Transformers. But still, freaking Soundwave.

BAY, Y U NO HAVE BARRICADE ON THIS.

Love the Dreads. Fuck Yea Crankcase.

Soundwave was badass indeed. Even if his screen time consisted of raping a satellite, he was still awesome. And Ravage!!! Plus OP being bloodthirsty for faces. And Screamer totally being Megatron's bitch.

Fuck year, Crankcase is like if a Predator was accepted as a Decepticon. Lazerbeak looks all kinds of win too. For a robot that has an altmode as a printer anyway.

[Blue Wisp]

Let's not forget Roadbuster

Awww yea. I can't wait for TF3

[Gavvie]

All being well with work (because they've decided to really fuck me over on this one), I SHOULD be going to see TF3 in IMAX 3D, which I'm very much looking forward to.

Yes, RotF wasn't a fantastic film by any stretch, but as a few people have mentioned, I just turned my brain off and enjoyed looking at what was on screen. This film should be an improvement on that, but I'm guessing we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

[Facehugger]

This is much like saying it's easier to build a house on a foundation of worms than it is to build on solid concrete. Given a story, it's easier to continue an interesting narrative when the audience enters the story already invested in well-played characters in an interesting universe.

No, it's not akin to saying that at all. It is exactly what it is. As a broad generalisation, it is easier to improve upon something that is crap, than something that is good.

Think about Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter V might not have been as well received as the original, but didn't it still benefit from the long legacy of the characters, the standing universe for all its wonder, the black ethos of Voldemort?

Irrelevant. The Live-Action continuity did not have those elements to work with. At this stage, all Bay seems to want to do is cut the crap and replace it with something more substansial.

Sure, it's hard to live up to that all the way, but it would be harder to create it from shit if the original books had been shit.

It's not a matter of 'creating' from shit. It's a matter of improving from shit, which is what needs to be done for TF3. You can stop comparing it to Harry Potter now, both are vastly different in premise surrounding their creation. Harry Potter started off on a high note. TF did not.

It is, indeed, harder to outdo the Godfather II than it is to outdo Transformers 2. By the same token, most blood-thirsty dictators probably aren't going to be quite as nasty as Stalin. I don't care how Transformers 3 compares to Transformers 2 because I don't pay for films to keep some mental checklist. I want to know whether I will enjoy the film.

You care enough about the comparison of both to hold a debate where said notion is at the very center of. Bay's intention with TF3 seems to be to draw away the elements which made the last film suck, so natural comparisons are going to be drawn between the two films. If you didn't care how they stacked up besides one another, and only wanted to see a good movie, we wouldn't be having this debate.

You seem to follow the argument "well some things are changing, so it might not suck!" Fine, I can see optimism.

No, I'm following the "A few core elements of the film are changing for the better" train of thought. This is not born of some percieved notion of optimism.

There's always the possibility that the next movie in a given series will blow us away. But I don't operate so generously. Film makers want me to give up my time and my money to see their film, and as such, they need to prove to me that they're capable of making something I like.

Strawman. I never claimed, or even *hinted* that my standpoint was that TF3 will blow us away.

But still the question remains: Has anyone on this team with any power proven to us they can make a decent film?

No, how about this as 'the' question? Would you prefer for Bay to at least attempt to gain new writers, or simply use the crappy ones from before? To me, you seem to be grasping at straws and using any excuse to complain.

And given that standpoint, no, no one has given me any reason to think that this film will be worth my money. From my experience, those who've made shit repeatedly will continue to make shit, and any optimism to the contrary is misplaced.

Not optimism, realism. If a director is cutting out the elements of the film that made them god-awful in the eyes of the public, and hires new people to work with the film, then it's pretty obvious he's going for an overall better experience. Hell, 2 hours of giant mechs fighting would have been better than the last two films. Once again, it is not hard to improve upon shit. This is not optimism I am using here, this is logic. Besides, this was yet another strawman, perhaps with elements of Red Herring too. I'm not trying to convince you that the film will be good, or is worth your money. What I'm trying to convey, is that chances are this film will be superior to the last.

It's this very optimistic assumption that the new actress will be better,

Once again, strawman. I never said the new actress would be better. I only used that to highlight the fact that he's cutting one of the more obvious aspects of Bad Acting the film gets slated for, and is trying to replace that character with another. This way if he falls short, he's no worse off than he was with the last two films, the only difference is that this time he tried to change the film according to what the public want, to some degree. I'm also going to have to tell you to stop pulling that word 'optimistic' out of your ass as some sort of inherent counterpoint. I'm not being optimistic. I'm trying to convey a logical thought process to you, and you refuse it on the grounds of me being 'optimistic' and with a plethora of strawmen to back them up.

that there are better characters to receive focus,

The Twins were absolutely abysmal, and by comparison, almost every single character in the movie, (Specifically other Transformers.), look good compared to them, even Bumblebee.

or that a lack of humor will lead to mature themes that I don't share

Goofy humour can often mar the seriousness of a premise, and specifically in TF2s case, the humour was just outright bad and ruined any semblance of maturity it may have held right from the outset. To not have crappy jokes to ruin the scenes, and adding in the fact that he's claimed to be upping the maturity level for this film, means that the logicl deduction is that this film will come off as more mature as a whole, even if just for losing the lame-ass humour.

Unless there's positive evidence to suggest improvement, the removal of the old regime usually won't yield improvement.

You seem to be stubborn for being stubborn in it's own sake here. Logic and common sense are useful tools. The examples I highlighted and argued for above, I wasn't arguing them out of optimism, I was doing so because those are the logical progresssions of such things; it's like you're sealing yourself inside a stone house and refusing to come out. I'm trying to understand your mindset here, but thus far, an army of strawmen and failure to grasp basic notions of logic, opting for stubbornnes in it's place, do not bode well for you.

But from my perspective, none of this bothered me too much In Transformers 2. All of it was there, yeah, but it wasn't worse than, say, the original X-men insofar as it bothered me. What got to me was the absolute absence of any likable, realistic, or relatable characters. Who was I supposed to relate to? That truism-spouting stereotype Optimus Prime? Shia Lebeouf's twelve year old in the body of a college student? His IQ-30 parents? The shit-eating textbook-stereotype government bureaucrat bad guys? One of the ten-thousand other pointless extras? I tolerate a lot of shit from shitty movies. All I need is good characterization. So yes, for me, the destruction of the characters is the whole problem.

Oh, for you? That's quite a departure from it is the whole problem. The latter is an attempt at an admission of fact, the former is a subjective, opinionated equivalent. As such, I cannot really tackle this newfound variation, except to say, is it subjective. My personal view on the characters, are that Megatron, Starscream, Ironhide and Jazz were all pretty cool characters, and best of all were true to form.

Probability based on prior results is the best mechanism for predicting the future, not blind hope.

Strawman. My argument is not comprised of blind hope, (Will you seriously cut out ths whole optimism crap? It's not making your argument stand-out from the poor standards it remains at already, nor is mine any different from your repeated, faulty labelling of it.), as I have stated not more than once, my argument is comprised of using a logical thought process to determine wether this film will supercede the previous one. Logic dictates that there is a good chance this film will indeed do better, but cutting out negative elements which, if left to remain, would only be counter-produtive to Bay's intentions this time around. Edited June 14, 2011 by Facehugger

[Shan Zhu]

You care enough about the comparison of both to hold a debate where said notion is at the very center of. Bay's intention with TF3 seems to be to draw away the elements which made the last film suck, so natural comparisons are going to be drawn between the two films. If you didn't care how they stacked up besides one another, and only wanted to see a good movie, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Actually, I didn't join a debate =3 I wrote a post independent of yours, saying "All of Bay's movies sucked; ergo this one is likely to suck too." You may argue that's not the topic's purpose, but note the title: "Can you trust micheal bay on TF3 not sucking?" Note my answer: "T3 is likely to suck." I don't care if T3 sucks less than T2; I just care if it sucks =)

Insofar as there's debate, it's there because you've so vehemently disagreed with that argument—and as such, the burden is on your to disprove my arguments, and it's your argument that T3 will suck less than T2 that's the straw man =3

To put it in technical terms, I made the affirmative proposition "TF3 is likely to suck," to the question "Can we trust Michael Bay that TF3 will not suck?" I have the affirmative burden of proof in terms of this proposition, but you have the negative burden to respond to the parameters of my discussion. As such "T3 will suck less than T2" is irrelevant.

Of course I didn't take the time to point all this out at the time because I was just having a fun time defending the Confucius Says joke and no one was throwing insults at my grasp of so-called "basic logical thought."

(Will you seriously cut out ths whole optimism crap? It's not making your argument stand-out from the poor standards it remains at already, nor is mine any different from your repeated, faulty labelling of it.) as I have stated not more than once, my argument is comprised of using a logical thought process to determine wether this film will supercede the previous one. Logic dictates that there is a good chance this film will indeed do better, but cutting out negative elements which, if left to remain, would only be counter-produtive to Bay's intentions this time around.

Oh stop insulting me you silly goose and take a chill pill |3 When all of this is over, we'll leave with our own preferences for movies. You'll hopefully enjoy T3, and I'll enjoy Killer Klowns from Outer Space, because the movies we watch shouldn't be dictated by what other people think =) And all of this is to say that your rude defiance of any kind of debate ettiquette is uncalled for because none of this really matters beyond what is (was) a fun discussion to pass the time and meet people.

Now then, as to your "logical progression"...

If we're going to talk logic, let's break down our basic syllogisms.

Yours:

1. Michael Bay is removing crap from TF2 in making TF3

2. When sequels have crap removed, they will likely suck less than the original.

3. Therefore, TF3 is likely to suck less than T2.

And fine; I can see your logic, even though it's not necessarily true because what's left behind from what's removed might suck as much or more. But still, I can understand the sentiment "it's less likely to suck." Again though, I don't care, and it isn't particularly relevant to the posts of mine you've been responding to. If we tried to conform this syllogism to my proposition, "TF3 will not be worth seeing," we would need to write it thus:

1. Michael Bay is removing crap from TF3

2. TF3 will not have the given crap

3. Therefore, TF3 will be worth seeing.

And that's just fallacious. Given a line of reasoning, a negative premise, i.e. "the film will not have Megan Fox," cannot yield a positive conclusion, i.e. "the film will be good." That's a fallacy of negative premise yielding an affirmative conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise

The implication behind your argument is that what already exists in Transformers is worth seeing--and that is a non-debatable point because it rests entirely on the subjective reception of the audience. Simply, those who liked the Transformers series for what it had already will like T3 given that your premises are correct; those who didn't won't. None of this responds to my argument, however.

Now my argument, on the other hand, is valid:

Identity: Probability is a reasonable way to predict the future outcome of an event

1. Probability is the sum of past data past data.

2. Past data for the TF series, TF team, and Michael Bay lean heavily towards films that suck.

3. Therefore, probability suggests that this film will suck.

I even made a Confucius Says picture that summarized this point :3

Have you questioned this argument at all? At any point? No, not really. It's all been a repetition of "well he's removing stuff that sucks," and "well it's going to suck less than TF2," all of which is pretty much irrelevant to the line I was following.

Oh, for you? That's quite a departure from it is the whole problem. The latter is an attempt at an admission of fact, the former is a subjective, opinionated equivalent.

Well, when it comes to the interpretation of a film and what makes it enbjoyable or unenjoyable, there isn't really fact transcendent of the subjective impressions of the viewers. To pretend that there's some God-ordained "this movie sucks because X" is silly. I respect everyone's right to enjoy a film; some of my favorite films, like Killer Klowns from Outer Space or Thankskilling, are not well-reviewed films.

But when someone creates a topic asking people to give their opinions, I give an opinion.

No, it's not akin to saying that at all. It is exactly what it is. As a broad generalisation, it is easier to improve upon something that is crap, than something that is good.

The goal is not mere improvement but the creation of something worthwhile. While it may be easier to improve on crap, it is more difficult to make crap worthwhile than to extend an already worthwhile franchise into the future.

And as I said from the beginning, my argument is that the movie will suck, not that it will suck as much or more than T2, and you responded to me, so any focus on improvement is your straw man =)

As for optimism, it is optimistic to think T3 will be a good film. It's even optimistic to think that T3 will be a better film than T2. Even if it's likely, it's optimistic, because optimistic doesn't imply irrational. It's just hopeful. Of course I don't tend to be very hopeful, but that's neither here nor there.

Irrelevant. The Live-Action continuity did not have those elements to work with. At this stage, all Bay seems to want to do is cut the crap and replace it with something more substansial.

Any good series had something that made it good, and often those elements are carried into the subsequent sequels. The LOTR and Harry Potter examples were examples of this, but the idea need not be limited to fantasy (although I think if you're saying Harry Potter is not live action and Transformers is, you may be guilty of a tad argument for argument's sake |D).

Good series can carry good characters, good themes, good universes into their sequels. Franchises that have nothing worth carrying into the sequels have to create something worthwhile from the ground up and they have to destroy the shit--and considering that I thought Shia Lebeouf's character, the protagonist of T3, was shit, that might be harder than firing Megan Fox.

It's not a matter of 'creating' from shit. It's a matter of improving from shit, which is what needs to be done for TF3.

Well how do you improve from shit? You destroy that which is shit, and you add something worthwhile. That additive part is creation.

I suppose you could argue that TF already had worthwhile elements that will shine through when we remove the shit; but I don't think so.

Not optimism, realism. If a director is cutting out the elements of the film that made them god-awful in the eyes of the public, and hires new people to work with the film, then it's pretty obvious he's going for an overall better experience.

Well of course he's trying to make it better. What's optimistic is the idea that he can.

Once again, strawman. I never said the new actress would be better.

But you see, if he cuts without adding, the movie will continue to suck. It will just be slightly less annoying and slightly more boring.

Goofy humour can often mar the seriousness of a premise, and specifically in TF2s case, the humour was just outright bad and ruined any semblance of maturity it may have held right from the outset. To not have crappy jokes to ruin the scenes, and adding in the fact that he's claimed to be upping the maturity level for this film, means that the logicl deduction is that this film will come off as more mature as a whole, even if just for losing the lame-ass humour.

Nyeeeh.

What is maturity? I'll call it interesting theme. Now if there was an interesting theme, or a compelling idea, driving T2 in the first place, I might agree with this. But this was never the case. There was never any mature idea because there were never mature characters to carry the ideas in the first place--and that includes the main cast returning in T3. Merely removing the humor will not create a meaningful theme.

To put it in terms of "logical deduction," I deny your premise "bad humor ruined maturity," as this would require maturity to ruin.

And Bay may claim his team is going for more maturity, but I wouldn't expect Bay to say "Oh, yeah... well, it's probably going to suck." He's what we'd call a tad biased as a source. Now, his word aside, is there any real evidence that T3 will be able to carry a meaningful theme any more seriously than T2?

Only that he is removing some shit, which is a good sign, but not positive evidence that can be used in the terms I've described.

I'm not trying to convince you that the film will be good, or is worth your money. What I'm trying to convey, is that chances are this film will be superior to the last.

Well you can do that if you like, and I'll acknowledge it's possible and even likely; but why anyone would give a shit is beyond me. It's like being hopeful that the incoming dictator will merely cut your toes off and let you bleed to death rather than crush your testicles while he does it. The important thing to hope for is to find a dictator that doesn't want to kill you—or, more to the point, that the film will be worth watching.

You seem to be stubborn for being stubborn in it's own sake here. Logic and common sense are useful tools.

I already explained why this is -logically- not the case, but in terms of common sense, for a film to be good (or not suck if you're going to play semantics again), it has to have something worth seeing. It's not enough to not have shit.

Therefore, if the movie only removes negative elements, it will not be good. There must be something worthwhile taking the place of the shit removed.

edit: Aha |D And now I see the T3 brigade is going through the topic giving negative points to anyone who has anything negative to say about the franchise. Honestly, does this deserve a -1?

The plot was stupid, the jokes were terrible, the action was almost unwatchable and the main characters can't act to save their lives.

And let's not forget Robot Heaven.

God you people are juvenile. The goal is not discussion or community through unlike opinion, but to oppress and persecute those whose opinions you don't like!

Grow up.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Lord Shen

[Chooch]

I'm going to be entirely honest here and say that I enjoyed both Transformers movies for two major reasons.

1) I have no real pre-established relations with the series. I've always known it existed but I was never really a fan of it.

2) I came into both movies wanting and expecting to see giant robots fight to the death while a bunch of explosions were going off and I got exactly that.

With those expectations it's hard to really be disappointed. For me, this newest Transformers movie may not be one of the best films I've ever seen, but at the very least, it'll be entertaining. Entertainment being the primary reason why I even bother watching movies in the first place.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Chooch

[lounge]

I'm going to be entirely honest here and say that I enjoyed both Transformers movies for two major reasons.

1) I have no real pre-established relations with the series. I've always known it existed but I was never really a fan of it.

2) I came into both movies wanting and expecting to see giant robots fight to the death while a bunch of explosions were going off and I got exactly that.

With those expectations it's hard to really be disappointed. For me, this newest Transformers movie may not be one of the best films I've ever seen, but at the very least, it'll be entertaining. Entertainment being the primary reason why I even bother watching movies in the first place.

That's exactly how I feel! And honestly I really love the humor.

[Dr Jackstraw]

For the record, the video game looks awesome, made by High Moon who made WFC, plays the same as well, so definitely gonna pick that up some time soon.

[Johnny Boy]

^ Looks like it's gonna blow the first two movie games out of the water. But that shouldn't be hard, considering the first two games were bullshit.

[Facehugger]

Actually, I didn't join a debate =3

Edited June 15, 2011 by Facehugger

[Dr Jackstraw]

bumpan for releasing in 3 days

get ready for robots in disguising, autobots, decepticons, explosioans, tna, Tnt, baysplosions, and facerippan.

Also dem early review previews

Over at Michael Bay's forum, Shoot For The Edit, an administrator posted the following one-line reactions to Dark Of The Moon from various film critics

Scott Mantz – Access Hollywood

“The best 3D since Avatar.”

Mike Wilber – NBC

"The best Transformers ever!"

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the summer movie to beat!"

National/Canada

Teddy Wilson – Host, InnerSPACE

“Blockbusters don’t get any bigger than this!

National/Canada

Danielle McGimsie – Etalk CTV

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon defies gravity.”

Chicago/4

Bill Zwecker – FOX-TV or FOX Chicago News or (FOX-TV Chicago)

“The absolutely best Transformers yet! Bigger, better, best! Terrific storytelling and non-stop action from start to finish! This is the movie event of the summer!”

“This is why we go to 3D films!”

Washington DC/7

Kevin McCarthy – FOX-TV Washington DC or CBS Radio

“Finally, a 3D experience that will blow your mind. Best 3D since Avatar.”

Dallas/8

Sandie Newton – CBS Dallas

“Absolutely mind blowing! ?This is what going to the movies is all about!”

Dallas/8

Nancy Jay – Daybreak USA (Syndicated Radio)

“Dark of the Moon delivers. It’s bigger, better, badder. This is the one you’ve been waiting for.”

Phoenix/10

Lisa Fuller-Magee – KTVK Phoenix

“See it in 3D! It’ll transform your summer.”

Houston/11

Jake Hamilton – FOX-TV

“The perfect summer movie. This is what going to the movies is all about. They’ve saved the best for last. You’ll be left in awe.”

“One of the most incredible things your eyes will ever see. You won’t breathe. You won’t blink. You’ll just be blown away.”

Seattle/12

Kim Holcomb – KING-TV NBC Seattle

“The best Transformers movie, by far.”

“This is why 3D exists.”

Miami/14

Shireen Sandoval – FOX News, Miami

“Visually stunning.”

“Summer fun at its finest.”

Detroit/15

Lee Thomas – FOX 2 Detroit

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the most action packed adventure of this summer…crisp transformations. Clean fun.

“They’ve reinvigorated the franchise.”

“The must see summer film.”

San Diego/16

Kelli Gillespie – XETV CW6 – San Diego

“Best Transformers film yet!”

“Action-packed. “

“Heart-pounding.”

“The most fun you’ll have at the movies this summer.”

“This is what a summer movie is meant to be! Go see Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

Denver/17

Chris Parente – FOX KDVR 31 or CW 2

“A heart stopping, eye popping masterpiece.”

Minneapolis/21

Rusty Gatenby – ABC TV Minneapolis

“Biggest action movie of the summer? How about biggest action movie EVER!”

“You’ll need the BIG bucket of popcorn for this one!”

“Not just the best Transformers movie, the best summer movie in years!”

Cleveland/24

Chris Van Vliet – WOIO, Cleveland

“Buckle up for the action thrill ride of the summer!”

“The biggest movie of the summer.”

Las Vegas/26

Rachel Smith – FOX 5, Vegas

“By far the best of the three!”

“The hottest cast of summer”

“2 hours of pure fun”

“The most action packed film of summer”

Kansas City/29

Shawn Edwards – FOX-TV

“The summer blockbuster has been transformed forever!”

"Phenomenal! The most exciting movie of the year. 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' is total awesomeness. It's a bigger and better experience. You'll be blown away."

"This is the 3D experience you have been waiting for! It's amazing. The 3D is like nothing you have ever seen before. You just won't see the movie. You'll actually feel like you are in the movie."

RATING: "* * * *"

Edited June 26, 2011 by Dr Jackstraw

[Shiluku]

I'm going to be entirely honest here and say that I enjoyed both Transformers movies for two major reasons.

1) I have no real pre-established relations with the series. I've always known it existed but I was never really a fan of it.

2) I came into both movies wanting and expecting to see giant robots fight to the death while a bunch of explosions were going off and I got exactly that.

With those expectations it's hard to really be disappointed. For me, this newest Transformers movie may not be one of the best films I've ever seen, but at the very least, it'll be entertaining. Entertainment being the primary reason why I even bother watching movies in the first place.

How I feel as well. For some reason I was never able to get into the old series and whatnot. That's not to say that I fully support this franchise, because I really don't, but it delivered what I was expecting.

However, I'm at least hoping that TF3 will be at least a little better than ROTF.

[Ekaje]

bumpan for releasing in 3 days

get ready for robots in disguising, autobots, decepticons, explosioans, tna, Tnt, baysplosions, and facerippan.

Also dem early review previews

Over at Michael Bay's forum, Shoot For The Edit, an administrator posted the following one-line reactions to Dark Of The Moon from various film critics

Eh, a bunch of praising one liners don't really mean much, even bad films having a few good quotes to put on their DVD cases. Though it doesn't really matter, it'll have enough boom to make it worth watching at least once.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Ekaje