AOE movie reviews

Money, violence, sex, computer graphics, scatalogical humor, racism, robots designed to be rednecks but given European accents, and maybe another sequel to the saga... what's not to love? TF m1, Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon and now Age of Extinction.

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Almighty Unicron » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:01 pm

You know what I want to see in TF5?

A cool modern update of Chip Chase played by Donald Glover.
Image
User avatar
Almighty Unicron
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Sparky Prime » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:13 pm

Shockwave wrote:I agree it's not a contradiction, buuuuuut it definitely is inconsistent.

2007: They came from "Somewhere"!
RotF: There's a spaceship but mostly they're still coming from "Somewhere"!
DOTM: SPACESHIP!!
AoE: SPACESHIP!!

Inconsistent means it doesn't stay true or compatible with what's been established, contradiction works as a synonym. If all you can say is that they came from "somewhere" in the first two films, then how is that inconsistent/contradicts that they could and do use ships for spaceflight? They never really show anything one way or another in the 2007 film except their 'comet' forms making the planetfall. That doesn't tell us anything about their journey, just their arrival. And I'd actually have to say ROTF implies that army launched from their crashed ship (which obviously wasn't going anywhere itself), especially with that ship being where The Fallen was held up until he sensed the death of Optimus, at which point he traveled with that army for their arrival on Earth. Where else would they all have come from? DOTM and AOE just had working ships (and Sentinel's space bridge) which is consistent with the earlier films given they really don't go into any detail in that aspect in the earlier films.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Shockwave » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 pm

They're not synonyms though. On screen it is inconsistent, meaning it's not the same way throughout. First we get them falling to Earth as meteor things later they're all using spaceships and space bridges. These are not the same and therefore, inconsistent. But, since we don't know where the "Meteor" form TFs launched from it doesn't necessarily contradict the usage of spaceships. Contradiction would be if it was in direct conflict with what has been established like what the big two do every year with comic books. But that doesn't happen here. All we have is an inconsistency, not a contradiction. Landing on Earth is inconsistent because they start off landing as meteors and then land with ships. But the introduction of spaceships doesn't conflict with the story because they could have been launching from spaceships, but again that would mean inconsistent use of spaceships (they launch from them from a distance in the first two and then just use them to land in the last two). Again, not contradictory, but definitely inconsistent.
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Sparky Prime » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:50 am

Shockwave wrote:They're not synonyms though.

They actually are synonyms.

On screen it is inconsistent, meaning it's not the same way throughout. First we get them falling to Earth as meteor things later they're all using spaceships and space bridges. These are not the same and therefore, inconsistent. But, since we don't know where the "Meteor" form TFs launched from it doesn't necessarily contradict the usage of spaceships. Contradiction would be if it was in direct conflict with what has been established like what the big two do every year with comic books. But that doesn't happen here. All we have is an inconsistency, not a contradiction. Landing on Earth is inconsistent because they start off landing as meteors and then land with ships. But the introduction of spaceships doesn't conflict with the story because they could have been launching from spaceships, but again that would mean inconsistent use of spaceships (they launch from them from a distance in the first two and then just use them to land in the last two). Again, not contradictory, but definitely inconsistent.

On screen, the 'meteor' forms is just one method shown for the Transformers to be able to land on a planet. Saying that's "just one more inconsistency" in the films for using a ship instead suggests that they are in some way contradicting that, not that they have to land on Earth using the same exact method in every single film. That's like saying Star Trek is inconsistent for using a shuttlecraft when they have the transporter. But that's not inconsistent at all. So often they have to use a shuttle because they can't take the transporter for whatever reason. How is the Transformers using a ship when given the option an inconsistency to using the 'meteor' forms? It isn't, because there is nothing that would contradict that in the films.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Shockwave » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:45 am

Consistency is doing the same thing over and over again. It's inconsistent because they're different methods of landing on the planet. It's just not contradictory because it's not in direct conflict with anything established plot-wise.

And actually, they're not the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradictionand....

Apparently Wikipedia defines "consistency" as anything that doesn't contain a contradiction.

Whatever. The ultimate point here is that first they start off doing one thing then switch to doing something else with no explanaition given, whatever you wanna call that. And it doesn't necessarily conflict plot wise, but it is a little bit vexing.
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Sparky Prime » Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:14 pm

Shockwave wrote:Consistency is doing the same thing over and over again. It's inconsistent because they're different methods of landing on the planet. It's just not contradictory because it's not in direct conflict with anything established plot-wise.

Consistency is staying true to a principal, not strictly just simply doing the same thing over and over again. That's repetition. It's not inconsistent because it's still true to the concept without any contradiction.

And actually, they're not the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradictionand....

Apparently Wikipedia defines "consistency" as anything that doesn't contain a contradiction.

Sigh... Sure, just ignore a thesaurus and a professional site dedicated to synonyms because a wiki page is going to be so much more accurate. :roll: But even that wiki article you linked to, it doesn't say that they aren't the same thing. And if you define consistency as something being with out contradiction, then an inconsistency would be something that does contradict.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Shockwave » Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:24 pm

Yeah, and that was also where I conceded the point on the terminology.

Bottom line, and getting back to the real discussion, they did one thing, then they did something different with no explanaition why. And they also did this without any conflicts in the story. So I dunno what the term to use for that is, but that's what happened. And for me, it's one more strike agains the movies.
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Sparky Prime » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:09 pm

Shockwave wrote:Bottom line, and getting back to the real discussion, they did one thing, then they did something different with no explanaition why. And they also did this without any conflicts in the story. So I dunno what the term to use for that is, but that's what happened. And for me, it's one more strike agains the movies.

I'd still say showing the crashed Decepticon ship in ROTF and DOTM telling us the Xantium was pieced together by the Wreckers and brought the second wave of Autobots to Earth does offer some explanation as to why they needed to use the meteor forms to get down to Earth, even though they don't come outright and say it. But to each their own.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Shockwave » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:45 am

Almighty Unicron wrote:You know what I want to see in TF5?

A cool modern update of Chip Chase played by Donald Glover.


Donald Glover needs to be in more stuff. And this would instantly make TF5 cool.
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: AOE movie reviews

Postby Dominic » Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:00 pm

Optimus being able to fly at the end of the film does not mean he could leave whenever he wanted. The previous films showed he needed external tech to fly, which he doesn't have in this film. And his ability to fly at the end of this film supposedly was part of his Knight upgrade when he took the sword, which admittedly I don't think the film made clear at all.


How does picking up a sword lead to having foot-flight? Seriously? (Admittedly, this sort of thing is common in TF. But, that does not make it okay.)


As I recall, Optimus did communicate with Hound after the crash, telling them to hold tight until they could get there. And it seemed to me the Dinobots helped them get there faster by running over a moutain which would have taken the Autobots longer to drive around.


"Hold on Hound! I have to put a blade to the throat of this guy who I just took out of a cell. He is going to help us....or else."


Put me in the same boat. I was actually pretty shocked that Tucci didn't bite it instead.


I just figured Attinger was supposed to be kind of noble. Looks like I was wrong.


Dom has some weird ideas when it comes to civilian casualties in war. I think sometimes he thinks too much about the big picture. (He would make a great politician!)


Rest assured, if I ever seize power, it will not be though political means.


Shit like THIS is why there need to be females in TF and they need to be treated as important individual characters, because the more pervasive "females who aren't just a male character's daughter/girlfriend" exist in any form of fiction, the less bullshit like this will come up.


In fairness though, the "whiny incompetent bitch" role went to a male character (sometimes more than one male character) in the first three. Sam is an insufferable fucktard in the second movie. The female lead in the first three is actually one of the more competent characters. (In the second movie, there is a line of dialogue from the roommate about how he was suprised Sam did not treat Mikaela better. I forget the exact details.)


(Bumblebee's kind of a bitch in this movie anyway. Him getting all butthurt over the Stinger commercial and nearly giving everyone away and getting them captured/killed over it because he was throwing a temper-tantrum was way uncalled-for.)


On the other hand, when I saw the movie at the Boston Common AMC, the audience *loved* that scene. So, yeah, Bay knows exactly what he is doing putting that crap in.
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston

PreviousNext

Return to Transformers Live-Action Movies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest