What needs to be done to improve TF3?

[Dominic]

I'm certainly exaggerating on the writers' ability or lack thereof, though I will cite Trek as a great example. Star Trek's traditionally a hard scifi, intellectual series, and I'd go so far as to generalise and say that people who like Trek are more likely to be above average intelligence. It's simply not a show that one can sit around and enjoy for the mindless explosions and entrancing action sequences, since it rarely has anything like that, and more regularly challenges the viewer with many an intriguing moral, ethical, or technological dilemma. The new Trek movie, while certainly enjoyable, was still rife with plot holes and poorly thought-out sequences that've raised the ire of a good few Trek fans I know (Although they did praise other elements and the casting's met with nigh-universal acclaim).

'Trek is *not* hard scifi. Nor is TF. It is as "hard" as Disney. "Hard" means that the story is based on real life principles of physics, and/or that everything can be reconciled with physics *with out* the excessive use of hand-wave science. "Star Trek" has too much hand-wave science (aka magic) to qualify as hard. And, in the places where hard-scifi allows for some hand-wavery, the principles established are used consistently throughout the story, not as convenient.

Is being "hard' necessarily a virtue, no. But, the trait should be credited accurately.


"Star Trek" may often try to challenge viewers, but more often it succeeds in serving up half-baked questions and morally incontinent characters. (Why the hell did the crew of Enterprise D *not* wipe out the Borg when they had the chance? Awww.....look, this little stray Borg is cute, that totally makes up for them being incredibly dangerous.)



I skipped "The Island" struck me as science-phobic ranting about a potentially useful (if still very new) technology. "Mission Impossible III" had some good points, but had enough bad action movie elements (convenient idiocy by some characters) that I cannot say it is worth sitting through.


What do you mean by "cannot expent Shakespear"? I am not a huge fan of the Bard. He wrote passable plots in tedious language. And, reading scripts does not help. (Yes, I know these are plays, and it makes sense for them to be scripts. But, reading scripts is just.....irksome.)

I would be happy with a movie that did not resemble a child's play session. ("Hey Prime, use my corpse. It is packed with power!" Yay, combination out of nowhere!) I do not care who is to blame. (I blame Kurtzman and Orci as many of the problems were not a question of a director taking things out of the script. But, yes, Bay deserves blame as well.) A bad movie is a bad movie.


Ticket sales are a tempting variable measure. They are number based, and easy to monetize, (literally and metaphorically). But, all ticket sales measure is interest in a movie, not how favorably it is viewed. I have seen RotF twice. The second time was largely curiosity based, as I wanted to see if the movie would get worse. (Given how much I hated it the first time, I was not sure what would happen. And, yes, I liked it less the second time through.) That does not mean I thought it was good.

And, even if people *like* a movie, that does not make it good. Low audience standards do not balance out sloppy writing and bungled editing. (It is almost impossible to simply figure out how much time elapses at certain points in the movie. This sort of basic problem is a huge part of the reason Bay is not taken seriously as a director in the story-telling sense.)

Low standards do not boost quality, they just lower the bar and make it easier to be better than average if one is ambitious enough.

Dom
- get annoyed with people who are impressed with 35 wpm typing.

[Sparky Prime]

I skipped "The Island" struck me as science-phobic ranting about a potentially useful (if still very new) technology.

It's not 'science-phobic' at all. Rather, the main focus revolves around moral questions of using cloning to harvest organs (among other things) when those clones are individuals in their own right and their fight to expose the cover up and gain their independence.

What do you mean by "cannot expent Shakespear"? I am not a huge fan of the Bard. He wrote passable plots in tedious language. And, reading scripts does not help. (Yes, I know these are plays, and it makes sense for them to be scripts. But, reading scripts is just.....irksome.)

Like it or not, Shakespeare is widely considered to be the greatest playwright the world has ever known. His plays are classics, studied the world over, 100's of years after they were written. Of coarse, something like that is incredibly rare and Shakespeare probably had no idea that would happen, but they were still very popular even in his own time. At any rate, all I'm saying is that Transformers (and indeed most movies) aren't made to get huge critical acclaim like that. They are made to entertain, and you can't expect an instant classic with any given movie. But even so, that doesn't make something a terrible movie just because it doesn't get that critical acclaim either. ROTF in particular is still obviously quite a popular film never-the-less.

I would be happy with a movie that did not resemble a child's play session. ("Hey Prime, use my corpse. It is packed with power!" Yay, combination out of nowhere!) I do not care who is to blame. (I blame Kurtzman and Orci as many of the problems were not a question of a director taking things out of the script. But, yes, Bay deserves blame as well.) A bad movie is a bad movie.

It hardly resembled a child's play session. And opinions are opinions. What one calls a bad movie, another would disagree.

And, even if people *like* a movie, that does not make it good. Low audience standards do not balance out sloppy writing and bungled editing.

How does one define "good"? Ultimately, it all comes down to their own personal opinions. From what I've been seeing, the general public really enjoys this movie. Is it the "bestest movie eva!"? By all means no. Certainly, it could be improved upon but that doesn't automatically make it a bad movie or that the audience has "low standards".

[andersonh1]

I would be happy with a movie that did not resemble a child's play session. ("Hey Prime, use my corpse. It is packed with power!" Yay, combination out of nowhere!)

Dom, could you define exactly what you mean by 'child's play session'? I get mental images of two Transformers being knocked into each other by giant hands, while vocally-made laser and crashing noises fill the air, and I doubt that's what you're talking about!

As for your example, combining Transformers are as old as the original Constructicons. It's a well-established part of Transformers lore, and hardly comes out of nowhere. Admittedly the general audience might not be aware of that, but then they had just seen movie Devastator form out of multiple robots and probably wouldn't see the Prime/Jetfire combo as any different than that of the Constructicons.

[andersonh1]

How does one define "good"? Ultimately, it all comes down to their own personal opinions.

No, not really. An objective set of standards can be applied to any narrative to determine how good it actually is. Is the sequence of events from the start to the finish of the movie clear and clearly communicated to the viewer? Do actions and events flow naturally from one into the next? Is everything clearly explained, and if not are the unexplained events the product of carelessness, or are they deliberate attempts by the writers to provoke thought in the audience?

This is not to say that the audience can't enjoy a movie even if the narrative isn't well-constructed, but audience enjoyment doesn't necessarily make a movie good. Successful and profitable, yes, and that's probably the bottom line, but that doesn't necessarily equal a quality product.

[Dominic]

Dom, could you define exactly what you mean by 'child's play session'? I get mental images of two Transformers being knocked into each other by giant hands, while vocally-made laser and crashing noises fill the air, and I doubt that's what you're talking about!

Actually, that is what I am talking about. Both TF movies were made with about that level of sophistication. Yeah, the graphics are prettier, and the sound quality is better, but the level of sophistication in terms of logical coherence between scenes. (Gah, how fast is the sun setting during the opening of the first movie. And, how quickly is it coming up after teh frat party in the second?!?!?!!?)

As for your example, combining Transformers are as old as the original Constructicons. It's a well-established part of Transformers lore, and hardly comes out of nowhere. Admittedly the general audience might not be aware of that, but then they had just seen movie Devastator form out of multiple robots and probably wouldn't see the Prime/Jetfire combo as any different than that of the Constructicons.

It is not the combining itself, it was the way it was done. That whole scene played out almost exactly the way my cousin and I would have handled it at the tender ages of 6 and 7. "Oh no, Prime is all better but he is still hurt!" "Quick, hook him up to Jetfire, who you would not think would be useful right niow, but he is! Jolt, help me!" "Sure thing Ratchet." Then, there would be some token zappy noises and parts would magically fly over to Prime.

At any rate, all I'm saying is that Transformers (and indeed most movies) aren't made to get huge critical acclaim like that. They are made to entertain, and you can't expect an instant classic with any given movie. But even so, that doesn't make something a terrible movie just because it doesn't get that critical acclaim either. ROTF in particular is still obviously quite a popular film never-the-less.

I am not saying that critical acclaim is part of a movie being good. "The Boston Globe" (a subsidiary of the NYTimes) runs movie reviews that are not at all helpful. Critics want movies that are just as formulaic by genre as they complain about others wanting. They just assign inherent values to genres. Action movies will always get bad reviews in the Globe, regardless of how well or inteligently made they are. ("Dark Knight" was a good example of this. The praise the Globe gave it was petulant, almost grudging. And, their Globe's criticism of "Terminator: Salvation" as "joyless" was banal and totally ignored real problems with the film.) This is common with most critics actually. They apply some vague standard they learned in film school, or an English class, and do as little thinking as the rest of the audience. They just reflexively respond differently to the same stimuli.


I will never understand the defense of "it is made to entertain" when applied to bad movies? Why does entertainment have to imply stupidity?

How does one define "good"? Ultimately, it all comes down to their own personal opinions. From what I've been seeing, the general public really enjoys this movie. Is it the "bestest movie eva!"? By all means no. Certainly, it could be improved upon but that doesn't automatically make it a bad movie or that the audience has "low standards".

Anderson covered this one. By "good", I expect a minimum of competence with editing and logical coherence, which Bay's movies lack. It might also be nice to see a mature handling of an idea beyond "wowzy, heeeeuuuuuuge 'splosuns." I can watch a kid toss around pieces and create mayhem. Bay's narratives never seem to quite rise beyond that level. And, considering the resources he has at his disposal, I at least expect competence at that level.

None of that is setting the bar terribly high. So, if audiences do not expect it, they have low standards.


Dom
-expects more from fiction, if only because there are so many other alternatives.

[Sparky Prime]

I will never understand the defense of "it is made to entertain" when applied to bad movies? Why does entertainment have to imply stupidity?

I said most movies are made to entertain. This does not pertain to bad movies only.

This is not to say that the audience can't enjoy a movie even if the narrative isn't well-constructed, but audience enjoyment doesn't necessarily make a movie good.

I was hoping some one would say something like this. I saw something that addressed this quite nicely on another message board...

As one journalist once said, and was quoted by Wierd Al on the commentary for 'UHF', "critics need to watch films with their backs to the screen and watch the audience...", meaning if the audience is laughing profusely at a comedy, jumping at a horror or having a damn good ride with an action film, the film works - period.

Now, again, obviously the movie has flaws, but the audience still enjoys it for what it is. Could it be better? Very much so. But they're still finding it to be a good movie for what it is never-the-less.

None of that is setting the bar terribly high. So, if audiences do not expect it, they have low standards.

And again, this is Transformers, not Shakespeare. The general audience isn't expecting something perfect. That is in no way to say they have low expectations though.

[Dominic]

As one journalist once said, and was quoted by Wierd Al on the commentary for 'UHF', "critics need to watch films with their backs to the screen and watch the audience...", meaning if the audience is laughing profusely at a comedy, jumping at a horror or having a damn good ride with an action film, the film works - period.

All that would gauge is the audiences reaction to something, not its quality.

Anderson put it correctly:

but audience enjoyment doesn't necessarily make a movie good.

This gets to the point I am making about low standards.

And audience need not expect perfection in order to expect competence.

That applies for any "audience", for any "show". I am not expected to be perfect at my job. But, if I was as inept at working with clients as Bay et al are with basics of narrative (pacing and setting, characterization), I would be fired. (And, again, I am not setting the bear terribly high here. I hardly work in an elite setting.) The flaws in TF are so many and varied, and are made worse by the fact the movie is made by professionals who are *paid* to do this sort of thing.

But, it seems large numbers of people do not even expect basic competence.

Dom

[donosaur]

could you define exactly what you mean by 'child's play session'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqN_wCK9hM

[Sparky Prime]

All that would gauge is the audiences reaction to something, not its quality.

It looks to me like we're talking about two completely different things here. You're referring to "good" in terms certain and specific aspects as to how the film is made. I'm referring to "good" as in terms of whether or not the audience had a positive reaction toward it. Simply put: Did the audience like the movie? This is not something that can be measured necessarily by the quality of a film. You could make a film that "quality" wise is perfect, but this does not mean the audience will enjoy the movie or think it is "good". As I said before "good" is an opinion the audience forms about the movie and it takes more than just quality to make a "good" film.

Anderson put it correctly:

but audience enjoyment doesn't necessarily make a movie good.

To which I disagree. If you enjoy a movie even though it has flaws do you say: "It was terrible I but enjoyed it"? No, that's completely ridiculous.

This gets to the point I am making about low standards.

And audience need not expect perfection in order to expect competence.

The world is imperfect. It's unreasonable to expect complete perfection. The best one can hope for is to do something to the best of their abilities, learn from their mistakes, and do better next time.

[138 Scourge]

If you enjoy a movie even though it has flaws do you say: "It was terrible I but enjoyed it"? No, that's completely ridiculous.

Not so much. I routinely enjoy terrible movies, if they're at least horrible in an entertaining way. To that end: Transformers 3 would be immeasurably improved if the Green Goblin truck from Maximum Overdrive was in it.