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.
Sparky Prime wrote: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.
Actually, I do that too. I'd say that being able to recognize the flaws in something despite your own personal enjoyment of it is a key element of being critical. The Energon cartoon is a good example of this. My love of that show is well-documented. Is it a good show? Of course it isn't! It's sloppily edited together from half-finished rush-animated scenes, a story that was poorly communicated between the various people involved and translated even worse. The voice acting is hastily directed and doesn't maintain the already-tenuous continuity of the story, which is a hackneyed mess of various setpiece ideas being thrown around in a pitiable attempt to seem 'Epic' at regular intervals. I acknowledge all these flaws, and if anyone asks me about this series I'll be sure to fill them in on all of it. But I still love the show with all my heart, just because of all the little things in it that strike a chord with me. But I still realize that it's a horrible, horrible show.
So, on the subject of ROTF: It was terrible, but I enjoyed it anyway. Of course, I've only seen it once so far, and that enjoyment would likely diminish with multiple viewings. I'll probably find out eventually.
BWprowl wrote:Actually, I do that too. I'd say that being able to recognize the flaws in something despite your own personal enjoyment of it is a key element of being critical.
You're not seeing what I'm saying.... It's not about recognizing flaws despite personal enjoyment, it's about enjoying something despite flaws. Such as your example with Energon. The show might not be put together that well, but you still love it despite this.
BWprowl wrote:Actually, I do that too. I'd say that being able to recognize the flaws in something despite your own personal enjoyment of it is a key element of being critical.
You're not seeing what I'm saying.... It's not about recognizing flaws despite personal enjoyment, it's about enjoying something despite flaws. Such as your example with Energon. The show might not be put together that well, but you still love it despite this.
And how is that different from the way all those ticket buyers are enjoying ROTF? I'll bet if you asked them their feelings, a lot would say something along the lines of "Well it wasn't that well-written, but DAMN I thought is was awesome anyway!"
BWprowl wrote:And how is that different from the way all those ticket buyers are enjoying ROTF? I'll bet if you asked them their feelings, a lot would say something along the lines of "Well it wasn't that well-written, but DAMN I thought is was awesome anyway!"
That's actually exactly what I mean. Despite some flaws in how the film was made they still thought it was good in terms of being an enjoyable movie.
There is a huge difference between competence and perfection. "All Star Superman" is a damned good story. I am still in (grudging awe of what Morrison did with it. But, it has flaws.
Just as competence is not the same as perfection, there is a difference between giving a pass on a few mistakes and giving a pass on a mistakes a decent hack would avoid. The "entertainment defense" tends to be evoked in defense of the movies that are not even competently made.
Obviously there is a huge difference, but no matter how competent someone/something is, mistakes do happen, even with the best of things. And obviously you're still not seeing what I mean by the "entrainment defense" as you call it. Personally, I don't see the mistakes in RotF as huge as you make them out to be. Obviously I still think they could do better, but as it is, I still think it's a pretty good movie. To use AHM as another example, we both acknowledge it has flaws but I apparently see them as being more serious than you do. As such, while I dislike the story, where as you appear to enjoy it even have praise for it. This difference of opinion does not mean either ROTF or AHM was incompetently made though and obviously we both have different tastes/opinions when it comes to what we enjoy reading/watching.
I'd like to see what the NEST guys/Autobots do with these Transformers that got animated by the Allspark in the first couple movies. Do they just slaughter the lot of 'em? Surely some of 'em can be rehabilitated, no?
I mean, not every newly-created Transformer can be evil, right? The Autobots are some mean bastards in this continuity, but surely not even they could have the policy of "Oh, you're just born? Well, hope you liked it, see you in hell."
Dominic wrote: too many people likely would have enjoyed it as....well a house-elf gang-bang.
I can forgive some rough pacing in a story that is intended to be read as a single story, rather than individual issues, especially when the writer actually has something to say.
The extra bridge in issue 8 is much more problematic. I actually missed it the first time through. But, it is beyond me how the artist could have read the script he was drawing and still
thought it would make sense to have a second bridge there.
Bay And co just make idiotic mistakes that a kid could avoid.
So basically you will forgive a story even though it was full of mistakes (many of which I'd say were easily avoidable) if it was cut into several issues and you liked what the writer has to say? Sounds to me like you're proving my point.
The second bridge isn't the only problem with that part of AHM. It was first said the bridge Sunstreaker destroyed was "the only way to and from" the Autobots' bunker. Yet Kup later says the Swarm "found their way around as expected". How can they expect the Swarm to get to them when the supposed only route was already destroyed? And this problem is only made worst by there being a second bridge.
It is not a question of liking what the writer had to saul so much as the writer having something to say in the first place. The pacing issues were likeky, if only partly, due to McCarthy planning to have 6, not 12, issues. Either way, enough happens in AHM as a full story (And it is intended to be read as such) that I really do not care if one issue does not immediately answer every question while masterminds pontificate about the universe exploding again.
And yes, the bridge thing was very clumsily handled.
