I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mistake

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.
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:
JediTricks wrote:Good luck with that. Michael Bay is still producing these, Marky Mark is in the next one, and the guy who wrote Batman Forever and Batman & Robin is writing that one as well as running the writers' room.
So what? None of that means the future films will be more of the same. Michael Bay producing isn't the same as him directing.
Tell that to I Am Number Four, TMNT, Ouija, The Last Ship, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
And Akiva Goldsman also wrote the screenplays for films like "A Beautiful Mind" which won him an Oscar. And again, he has a huge team to work with here, including the writers from several successful comic book movies and TV series.
He got lucky on A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man or he saves his good work for non-genre material, his work outside those hasn't been at that level or even close, it's been hacky. He wrote fucking Lost in Space, that movie was unbearable; and The Da Vinci Code and I Robot which were bland and overly reliant on set pieces in place of character work.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:Tell that to I Am Number Four, TMNT, Ouija, The Last Ship, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
Not that those don't have issues of their own, but it's still not the same thing as if Bay had directed them himself. I mean, that's like saying the first 4 Transformers should have been better because Spielberg is a critically acclaimed director that produced those films. That's not how that works. So just because Bay will be a producer now instead, it doesn't automatically mean it'd be bad.

Besides, I really don't think Bay is the biggest problem with the films when a lot of the problems were in the story itself.
He got lucky on A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man or he saves his good work for non-genre material, his work outside those hasn't been at that level or even close, it's been hacky. He wrote fucking Lost in Space, that movie was unbearable; and The Da Vinci Code and I Robot which were bland and overly reliant on set pieces in place of character work.
I very much disagree with you about The Da Vinci Code and I, Robot. Those were good movies. And the point is, sure he's had a few duds in his career but you can't just ignore he's had more than a little success in the business as well. Nor is he the only writer for the future TF projects.

User avatar
Almighty Unicron
Supreme-Class
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Almighty Unicron »

I'd say that he has more duds than hits in his career, honestly. I don't think I've seen a single thing by him that I've enjoyed.
Image

User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:
JediTricks wrote:Tell that to I Am Number Four, TMNT, Ouija, The Last Ship, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
Not that those don't have issues of their own, but it's still not the same thing as if Bay had directed them himself. I mean, that's like saying the first 4 Transformers should have been better because Spielberg is a critically acclaimed director that produced those films. That's not how that works. So just because Bay will be a producer now instead, it doesn't automatically mean it'd be bad.
When Spielberg is a hands-on producer, those films come out really good; when he's just an executive producer essentially attaching his name to something, they don't fare as well. Bay's influence as a producer is part of why those movies have big problems, he's the one guiding them towards those choices, so if he's a producer it automatically means he's going to guide it, and his track record is not good.
Besides, I really don't think Bay is the biggest problem with the films when a lot of the problems were in the story itself.
The director interprets the story, but in Bay's case he also gave guidance of what he wanted.
I very much disagree with you about The Da Vinci Code and I, Robot. Those were good movies. And the point is, sure he's had a few duds in his career but you can't just ignore he's had more than a little success in the business as well. Nor is he the only writer for the future TF projects.
would argue that The Da Vinci Code and I Robot were adequate popcorn films, but they weren't "good movies", and the aggregate opinion seems to agree: The Da Vinci Code has an IMDB score of 6.5 and 25% on Rotten Tomatoes with an audience score of 57%; I Robot fares better with 7.1 IMDB, a 58% Rotten Tomatoes critics score and a 70% audience score. Now compare that to A Beautiful Mind which has an 8.2 IMDB, 75% RT and 93% audience score; Cinderella Man with an 8 IMDB, 80% RT and 91% audience score. We can like those movies, but I don't think they're universally-acceptable as examples of "good movies".

Also, one more factor against Akiva Goldsman in my eyes is that as the head of a writers room, he doesn't seem to be the right kind of writer since he adapts other works, mainly from successful books. Unless he starts pulling heavy elements from IDW and Sunbow and Marvel, he's going to be out in the weeds adapting new ideas from whole cloth for these existing characters... the last time he did that? Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:When Spielberg is a hands-on producer, those films come out really good; when he's just an executive producer essentially attaching his name to something, they don't fare as well. Bay's influence as a producer is part of why those movies have big problems, he's the one guiding them towards those choices, so if he's a producer it automatically means he's going to guide it, and his track record is not good.
Bay is listed as an executive producer for Transformers 5, not as a producer. And making a movie involves a ton of people, yet you seem to want to blame Bay for everything wrong for every project he's ever done. I get you're not a fan but it can't all be his fault, especially when he's not the director for it to be his call.
The director interprets the story, but in Bay's case he also gave guidance of what he wanted.
I know what a director does, but when the story is poorly written in the first place, that makes it hard to come up with a good interpretation for that story. And again, making a movie involves a lot of people. Not everything wrong with the Transformers films is because of him alone.
would argue that The Da Vinci Code and I Robot were adequate popcorn films, but they weren't "good movies", and the aggregate opinion seems to agree: The Da Vinci Code has an IMDB score of 6.5 and 25% on Rotten Tomatoes with an audience score of 57%; I Robot fares better with 7.1 IMDB, a 58% Rotten Tomatoes critics score and a 70% audience score. Now compare that to A Beautiful Mind which has an 8.2 IMDB, 75% RT and 93% audience score; Cinderella Man with an 8 IMDB, 80% RT and 91% audience score. We can like those movies, but I don't think they're universally-acceptable as examples of "good movies".
And now you're nitpicking what constitutes a good movie... In my book, a good popcorn flick is still a good movie. I mean, look at the gaps between the critics and audience in those statistics for The Da Vinci Code and I, Robot you posted. The critics may not have been big fans but the general audience was clearly much more favorable of them. Action movies like those generally don't sit well with critics but that doesn't make them bad movies.

Not to mention, The Da Vinci Code is a bit controversial given the religious aspect which could have skewed how people rated it.
Also, one more factor against Akiva Goldsman in my eyes is that as the head of a writers room, he doesn't seem to be the right kind of writer since he adapts other works, mainly from successful books. Unless he starts pulling heavy elements from IDW and Sunbow and Marvel, he's going to be out in the weeds adapting new ideas from whole cloth for these existing characters... the last time he did that? Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
Like none of the other writers in the room will be allowed to express original ideas? Again, he's going to have a pretty big team working with him on Transformers, many of which are successful comic book movie and TV show writers. Even if Goldsman is only good at adaptations as you've suggested, he's not going to be the only writer for that to really matter.
Almighty Unicron wrote:I'd say that he has more duds than hits in his career, honestly. I don't think I've seen a single thing by him that I've enjoyed.
To each their own, but even if you don't like any films he's written there are plenty of people that did like several of them, as some of the statistics Jedi posted goes to show.

User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:
The director interprets the story, but in Bay's case he also gave guidance of what he wanted.
I know what a director does, but when the story is poorly written in the first place, that makes it hard to come up with a good interpretation for that story. And again, making a movie involves a lot of people. Not everything wrong with the Transformers films is because of him alone.
Again, he guided them to write a story that suited his demands, so the problems with the script started with the man who directed and produced the things.

And look at TF'07, that movie's script isn't exactly bad, it's not great and it's certainly not good Transformers, but it's relatively linear plotting and character development; yet Bay's hand turned that script into an awful, awful movie. The director, unless he's subverted by his producers, is where the buck is supposed to stop -- Bay was one of his own producers on Transformers.
would argue that The Da Vinci Code and I Robot were adequate popcorn films, but they weren't "good movies", and the aggregate opinion seems to agree: The Da Vinci Code has an IMDB score of 6.5 and 25% on Rotten Tomatoes with an audience score of 57%; I Robot fares better with 7.1 IMDB, a 58% Rotten Tomatoes critics score and a 70% audience score. Now compare that to A Beautiful Mind which has an 8.2 IMDB, 75% RT and 93% audience score; Cinderella Man with an 8 IMDB, 80% RT and 91% audience score. We can like those movies, but I don't think they're universally-acceptable as examples of "good movies".
And now you're nitpicking what constitutes a good movie... In my book, a good popcorn flick is still a good movie. I mean, look at the gaps between the critics and audience in those statistics for The Da Vinci Code and I, Robot you posted. The critics may not have been big fans but the general audience was clearly much more favorable of them. Action movies like those generally don't sit well with critics but that doesn't make them bad movies.
Yes... it is I who is clearly the one that is nitpicking and not you. :roll: I didn't say they were good popcorn films, I said they were adequate popcorn films.
Also, one more factor against Akiva Goldsman in my eyes is that as the head of a writers room, he doesn't seem to be the right kind of writer since he adapts other works, mainly from successful books. Unless he starts pulling heavy elements from IDW and Sunbow and Marvel, he's going to be out in the weeds adapting new ideas from whole cloth for these existing characters... the last time he did that? Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
Like none of the other writers in the room will be allowed to express original ideas? Again, he's going to have a pretty big team working with him on Transformers, many of which are successful comic book movie and TV show writers. Even if Goldsman is only good at adaptations as you've suggested, he's not going to be the only writer for that to really matter.
That came off contrary for the sake of being contrary, it has nothing to do with what I said. You are making an ungrounded "what if" scenario that doesn't have a foot in the reality of the point. Regardless of who else is there, Goldsman is the showrunner when it comes to the writers room, he is going to be the filter through which ideas flow.
Almighty Unicron wrote:I'd say that he has more duds than hits in his career, honestly. I don't think I've seen a single thing by him that I've enjoyed.
To each their own, but even if you don't like any films he's written there are plenty of people that did like several of them, as some of the statistics Jedi posted goes to show.
Batman & Robin made money, it doesn't mean the majority of people who saw it liked it. In my book, an "eh" audience score means people liked the popcorn and the loud shiny things, there has to be more to it than that to say the audience actually liked the film. There was a screening of Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 on opening weekend that a buddy of mine went to where there was a singular laugh in the audience, literally one person laughed once during the whole screening, making that comedy an absolute failure, yet people walking out of the theater afterwards actually were having conversations about how they liked it. How could they say the liked it if that COMEDY MOVIE didn't make them laugh once? Because when they paid their money, they made a decision, they bet on a candidate and invested their time, the film didn't entertain them but it also didn't offend them, so they subconsciously wanted to talk themselves into believing they made the right choice. If a movie gets a 6/10, that generally means they didn't poke their eyes out.
Transformers - 7.1 imdb, 57% RT, 86% AS (Rotten Tomatoes audience score)
TF:ROTF - 6 IMDB, 19% RT, 56% AS -- more than half of the people who use Rotten Tomatoes said they LIKED Revenge of the Fallen enough!
TF:DOTM - 6.3 imdb, 35% RT, 56% AS
TF:AOE - 5.8 imdb, 18% RT, 52% AS -- is AOE the worst movie in the series? Most people I have heard from say it's not, yet audiences have grown tired of throwing their money at this series and are reacting against it. Either that or it really is the worst one, but there's stiff competition in that claim.

So which of those is the good movie and which is the bad? All of them are over 50% on audience scores, nearly all of them are over a 6 on IMDB, reviewers liked DOTM more than 2 and 4 yet audiences didn't agree. It's almost as if these movies are interchangeable junk and none of them are good at all, yet audiences still give them a mountain of leeway because they are big and loud and shiny and waste a few hours of their lives watching sexy dames and fast-talking heroes and giant alien robots punching each other, and no matter how the movies actually made them feel they want to justify a decision to drop money on a ticket.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:Again, he guided them to write a story that suited his demands, so the problems with the script started with the man who directed and produced the things.
And again, as a producer he's not the guy that makes the final call on that sort of stuff. Sure he'd have some input, but he's just one of many people putting in their input in the role as a producer.
And look at TF'07, that movie's script isn't exactly bad, it's not great and it's certainly not good Transformers, but it's relatively linear plotting and character development; yet Bay's hand turned that script into an awful, awful movie. The director, unless he's subverted by his producers, is where the buck is supposed to stop -- Bay was one of his own producers on Transformers.
No, it was a bad script to begin with and Bay's direction didn't help to make it any better.
Yes... it is I who is clearly the one that is nitpicking and not you. :roll: I didn't say they were good popcorn films, I said they were adequate popcorn films.
You were the one to pull up statistics to try and say what is and isn't considered to be a "good" film, not me. All I did was express my opinion that I thought they were good movies.
That came off contrary for the sake of being contrary, it has nothing to do with what I said. You are making an ungrounded "what if" scenario that doesn't have a foot in the reality of the point. Regardless of who else is there, Goldsman is the showrunner when it comes to the writers room, he is going to be the filter through which ideas flow.
What exactly was contrary? You keep saying how you think Goldsman's the wrong man for the job with out any mention of any of the other writers he'll have to work with. That's not a "what if" scenario at all, we know for a fact Robert Kirkman, Andrew Barrer, Gabriel Ferrari, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway, Zak Penn, Jeff Pinkner, Christina Hodson, Lindsey Beer, Ken Nolan, Geneva Robertson-Dworet and Steven S. DeKnight have signed on as writers for the Transformers Cinematic Universe. Sure Goldsman will be the showrunner, but the way you're arguing, you seem to be assuming that means none of the other writers ideas will make it into a script and he'll just make it as bad as Batman and Robin. You also seem to be trying to gloss over the fact he has made some critically acclaimed movies since then, even if they are adaptations.
Batman & Robin made money, it doesn't mean the majority of people who saw it liked it.
I never said anything about how much a movies makes being a measure for people liking it or not.
So which of those is the good movie and which is the bad? All of them are over 50% on audience scores, nearly all of them are over a 6 on IMDB, reviewers liked DOTM more than 2 and 4 yet audiences didn't agree. It's almost as if these movies are interchangeable junk and none of them are good at all, yet audiences still give them a mountain of leeway because they are big and loud and shiny and waste a few hours of their lives watching sexy dames and fast-talking heroes and giant alien robots punching each other, and no matter how the movies actually made them feel they want to justify a decision to drop money on a ticket.
Because comparing a series of films is the same thing as individual films written by the same guy? I mean really, there is a very different dynamic when you're talking about a series of sequels. It it any wonder the audience would be a less positive about the 4th film that's basically more of the same, even if it's somewhat better than a previous entry?

User avatar
Almighty Unicron
Supreme-Class
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Almighty Unicron »

JediTricks wrote:There was a screening of Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 on opening weekend that a buddy of mine went to where there was a singular laugh in the audience, literally one person laughed once during the whole screening, making that comedy an absolute failure, yet people walking out of the theater afterwards actually were having conversations about how they liked it. How could they say the liked it if that COMEDY MOVIE didn't make them laugh once? Because when they paid their money, they made a decision, they bet on a candidate and invested their time, the film didn't entertain them but it also didn't offend them, so they subconsciously wanted to talk themselves into believing they made the right choice. If a movie gets a 6/10, that generally means they didn't poke their eyes out.
Image
Image

User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:No, it was a bad script to begin with and Bay's direction didn't help to make it any better.
Explain how it was a bad script, as I am not seeing that. It's a poor Transformers script for its mishandling of legacy character integrity, but overall it seemed like an adequate script. It had relatively direct character motivations and arcs. Plot goals were supported throughout for every story faction. Dialogue nearly always drove characters and situations forward. I'll give you cliche dialogue and a deus ex machina denouement for the Megatron resolution, but other than that everything that matters to the story is set up and follows through in an even pace, building threats and tension.
You were the one to pull up statistics to try and say what is and isn't considered to be a "good" film, not me. All I did was express my opinion that I thought they were good movies.
I selected them as movies considered by the general audience as not good, you countered that "they are good movies" as if the majority of audiences not that you individually thought they were good. Since taste is subjective, the only way to argue that is statistics. That's the difference between nitpicking and making a cohesive argument.
What exactly was contrary? You keep saying how you think Goldsman's the wrong man for the job with out any mention of any of the other writers he'll have to work with. That's not a "what if" scenario at all, we know for a fact Robert Kirkman, Andrew Barrer, Gabriel Ferrari, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway, Zak Penn, Jeff Pinkner, Christina Hodson, Lindsey Beer, Ken Nolan, Geneva Robertson-Dworet and Steven S. DeKnight have signed on as writers for the Transformers Cinematic Universe. Sure Goldsman will be the showrunner, but the way you're arguing, you seem to be assuming that means none of the other writers ideas will make it into a script and he'll just make it as bad as Batman and Robin. You also seem to be trying to gloss over the fact he has made some critically acclaimed movies since then, even if they are adaptations.
The job he's wrong for is head writer, the job of head writer is not merely to write but to guide and filter the rest of the writers under him. The "what if" scenario you came up with is what other writers might create that could be quality, but that's immaterial to the question of the job of head writer.

I didn't gloss over anything, I directly commented that I thought he got lucky with his 2 acclaimed films and later even used them as examples show the difference between the opinion defining a "good" movie and a merely adequate one.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: I think doing several newer TF Movies each year,is a mis

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:Explain how it was a bad script, as I am not seeing that. It's a poor Transformers script for its mishandling of legacy character integrity, but overall it seemed like an adequate script. It had relatively direct character motivations and arcs. Plot goals were supported throughout for every story faction. Dialogue nearly always drove characters and situations forward. I'll give you cliche dialogue and a deus ex machina denouement for the Megatron resolution, but other than that everything that matters to the story is set up and follows through in an even pace, building threats and tension.
You need me to explain how it was a bad script when you freely admit several of the problems it had? How can you even call it an "adequate" script in the same sentence as saying it's a poor Transformers script that mishandles the characters?
I selected them as movies considered by the general audience as not good, you countered that "they are good movies" as if the majority of audiences not that you individually thought they were good. Since taste is subjective, the only way to argue that is statistics. That's the difference between nitpicking and making a cohesive argument.
First of all, I didn't simply say "they are good movies" as if I was referring to the majority of audiences. Context is everything and you're leaving out an entire sentence. After you'd said they were "bland" movies I countered with "I very much disagree with you about The Da Vinci Code and I, Robot. Those were good movies." That first sentence tells you it's my opinion, not how the general audience may have seen it. The general audience wasn't even mentioned until you brought up the statistics, which even with those, taste is still debatable. I mean, looking at I,Robot the general audience generally like it for it to be at 70% even if the critics were less favorable at 58%. That's a pretty big gap. So no, it's still nitpicking trying to define what constitutes a "good" movie when that's entirely subjective.
The job he's wrong for is head writer, the job of head writer is not merely to write but to guide and filter the rest of the writers under him. The "what if" scenario you came up with is what other writers might create that could be quality, but that's immaterial to the question of the job of head writer.

I didn't gloss over anything, I directly commented that I thought he got lucky with his 2 acclaimed films and later even used them as examples show the difference between the opinion defining a "good" movie and a merely adequate one.
You've got to be kidding me. What ideas the other writers come up with in the writers room isn't a "what if" scenario, the whole point of having a team of writers is to come up with ideas to help make the script. Yes it's the job of the head writer to guide the others and filter ideas that'll ultimately make it into the script, but the ideas that the other writers come up with is not at all immaterial to the job of the head writer, as the job also entails listening to the input of the team to develop that script and improving it through the drafting process. Otherwise, why even bother with a team of writers?

And that's exactly what I mean by glossing over the successes he has had in the business. Sure you commented on those two films but you're basically dismissing them by saying he just got lucky with them and pointing out that they're adaptations, like it still doesn't take some skill to make an adaptation into a good movie, let alone one that's critically acclaimed. Instead, you've been focusing on the more negatively reviewed films he wrote like Batman and Robin and acting like that's the true gauge of his writing.

Post Reply