TF Views

Shockwave wrote: Also, I can't believe we're on a TF website and none of us has mentioned the TF movies. The first one suffered primarily from shaking cam syndrome and massive plot holes. Also, I didn't care for the robot designs. ROTF was even worse, sure there was less shaky cam, but again the plot holes piled up and the designs weren't better and the "humor" was just not funny. DOTM was way better than the previous 2, but again, 2 times 0 is still 0.

Probably because most of us here have discussed to death how much we HATE the TF live action movies in decent detail.

The only reason I Watch the TF live movies is for the ground breaking new age CGI Robots designs. Everything else is down hill,the stories,plots,dialogues,actors are all epic awful. I love the movie-verse leader sized toys because their so high quality their almost at the MP TF toy level---> To the extent takara called a few of them Movie-verse MP TF leader sized toys.

I thought the 2007 movie was better than ROTF. ROTF,I hated so much,that I rate the DOTM movie slightly better than the 2nd one.

DOTM's movie had a major problem that was unforgiveable,The movie itself could not be viewed in non-3-D. I watched the movie in 3-D when it was in theatres. I tried to watch the DOTM movie on a DVD on a non-3-D DVD & Non-3-D TV & It was next to none impossible to make out any of the CGI Robots & CGI Scenes----> most of this appeared blurry & almost invisble. I have 20/20 vision & if I saw stuff blurry,people with lesser vision must have seen worse. I SUSPECT THE REASONS WHY THE MAJOR CABLE MOVIE CHANNELS LIKE HBO,CINEMAX,SHOWTIME,ETC,HAVEN'T shown the DOTM movie yet was due to it was un-watchable in NON-3-D FORMAT.

I felt the DOTM movie had the potential to be a better movie than the 1st 2007 movie. Sadly the DOTM movie was ruined by devoting so much time to wrapping up all the humans stories involvements in this Trilogy. The army guys wrap up involvement stories literally lasted for one hour & dragged this movie on a downward spiral. every thime the humans grab the spotlight in these TF movies,The robots get less time on-screen. Megatron's involvement in DOTM was shameful & embarassing.

ROTF,The twins & all those super tiny robots ruined this movie. Sadly,the Twins got the most Robot speaking dialogue in the 2nd film minus Optimus. Seeing returning 2007 Autobots in ROTF like ironhide & Ratchet playing on the sidelines & getting their roles/dialogue reduced was sad.

I felt most of the non-military humans dialogue was written for the actors/actresses to work around Shia Le Barf's barely 1-d acting skills he possesed which was nick-teen-comedy. the reasons the non-military humans dialogue was written so corny,cheesy,outdated,extreme clown humor,teen sex situtations was Shia le Barf's fault as he's a awful actor & couldn't act out the other emotions in a decent,believable way.

The 2007 Movie suffered because the CGI robots were on the screen less than the 2nd & 3rd movies. For the Autobots,they did nothing important until the end of the 2007 movie. having the 2007 autobots in the first 70% of the 2007 movie run around & hide in sam's yeard was pathetic. the Decepticons appearances in the 2007 movie felt like glorified cameo appearances.

Some of the CGI in the DOTM movie that I saw in 3-D,in a Theatre seemed like un-finished first draft CGI. I'm referring to the CGI jets/planes that appeared in the beginning of the DOTM movie. Some of the CGI Jets/planes looked like square cardboard milk cartoons that were floating around in the skies.

Tigermegatron wrote:

Shockwave wrote: Also, I can't believe we're on a TF website and none of us has mentioned the TF movies. The first one suffered primarily from shaking cam syndrome and massive plot holes. Also, I didn't care for the robot designs. ROTF was even worse, sure there was less shaky cam, but again the plot holes piled up and the designs weren't better and the "humor" was just not funny. DOTM was way better than the previous 2, but again, 2 times 0 is still 0.

Probably because most of us here have discussed to death how much we HATE the TF live action movies in decent detail.

True but we've also done the same thing with the Terminator debate and I think even the Batman movies as well so we're no strangers to rehashing discussions.

Wanna have your minds blown? Read this:

http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/ ... pyface.pdf

"The (film's) success was suomewhat surprising, and not just because 30-year-old director, Timothy Burton's only other commercially released movies were the quirky pair Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. First, the Wall Street Journal reported in November, 1988, that thousands of Bat-fans were protesting the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman. Warner Brothers became so concerned about the film's success, that they cut a trailer months ahead of schedule, hoping to drum up interest by showing it during the Christmas season (Barol, 1989). Second, the movie itself was a gloomy exception to the typically mid-summer box office releases. Gotham City is left the same shadowy, dingy place that it is in the opening shots; the hero is increasingly unstable; and the central romance reaches no satisfactory resolution. Further, the action sequences are sluggishly paced and the special effects are far less sophisticated than a contemporary, post-Star Wars audience might be expected to tolerate. Why, then, did the public respond so overwhelmingly to the most recent manifestation of this 50-year-old superhero? . . .

Mako Crab wrote:Wanna have your minds blown? Read this:

http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/ ... pyface.pdf

Wow, that guy overanalyzes not just Batman, but the audience who enjoys reading/watching his exploits. I don't think the reasons are anywhere near as deep and complicated as he makes it out to be.

It is interesting to revisit the major angst over Micheal Keaton's casting, which I remember very well. The whole deal with Ben Affleck is very similar.

Yeah, I read a fraction of that and had to stop, it's that bad. The main problem I have is that this isn't written in any sort of language that anyone other than a grad student could understand and even then, it's only said student's PROFESSOR that would understand it. I mean, I have to interpret legalese on a daily basis as part of my job, so it's not like I can't read or anything, but I really just found myself constantly asking "what the fuck is this guy talking about?" I also think his analysis is bullshit. And I've taken a lot of psychology course and was not impressed with the models of either Jung or Frued and really just think the whole thing is nonsense. This guy is basically looking for some profound psychological meaning in Batman that isn't there.

Shockwave wrote:Yeah, I read a fraction of that and had to stop, it's that bad. The main problem I have is that this isn't written in any sort of language that anyone other than a grad student could understand and even then, it's only said student's PROFESSOR that would understand it.

*raises hand*
Grad student. English, literature, writing and media analysis were the focus of my major. I understood it just fine, thank-you.

I mean, I have to interpret legalese on a daily basis as part of my job, so it's not like I can't read or anything, but I really just found myself constantly asking "what the fuck is this guy talking about?"

Admittedly, the jargon can be a hurdle.

I also think his analysis is bullshit. And I've taken a lot of psychology course and was not impressed with the models of either Jung or Frued and really just think the whole thing is nonsense. This guy is basically looking for some profound psychological meaning in Batman that isn't there.

It's interesting how quick people are to dismiss this kind of analysis. The assumption is always that, no one in the mass media industry is clever or smart enough to encode all these messages and symbols into their work. When really, most of those people writing books, making movies, etc. have all been trained in traditional media interpretation and are familiar with all these symbols and their inherent meanings.Sure, Jung and Freud may be out of date, but their models are also the most commonly known and easily accessible. When I was in media analysis, we studied those models, out of date as they may be. So people in the media business absolutely would be aware of these things. You hand that toolkit of symbols and meanings to a writer or director that's trying to give their work some meaning, and you find a lot of this kind of stuff crop up, whether they're using it correctly or not.

It's not that big of a leap to think that people not versed in modern psychology are still falling back on the most famous psychologists' models of the psyche.

Burton has done a DVD commentary for the first film and doesn't delve into it that much. If the director of the film isn't making a big deal out of it, it's probably not intended. But whatever! I didn't read the thing, just the quoted bit.

Mako Crab wrote:

Shockwave wrote:Yeah, I read a fraction of that and had to stop, it's that bad. The main problem I have is that this isn't written in any sort of language that anyone other than a grad student could understand and even then, it's only said student's PROFESSOR that would understand it.

*raises hand*
Grad student. English, literature, writing and media analysis were the focus of my major. I understood it just fine, thank-you.

I mean, I have to interpret legalese on a daily basis as part of my job, so it's not like I can't read or anything, but I really just found myself constantly asking "what the fuck is this guy talking about?"

Admittedly, the jargon can be a hurdle.

I also think his analysis is bullshit. And I've taken a lot of psychology course and was not impressed with the models of either Jung or Frued and really just think the whole thing is nonsense. This guy is basically looking for some profound psychological meaning in Batman that isn't there.

It's interesting how quick people are to dismiss this kind of analysis. The assumption is always that, no one in the mass media industry is clever or smart enough to encode all these messages and symbols into their work. When really, most of those people writing books, making movies, etc. have all been trained in traditional media interpretation and are familiar with all these symbols and their inherent meanings.Sure, Jung and Freud may be out of date, but their models are also the most commonly known and easily accessible. When I was in media analysis, we studied those models, out of date as they may be. So people in the media business absolutely would be aware of these things. You hand that toolkit of symbols and meanings to a writer or director that's trying to give their work some meaning, and you find a lot of this kind of stuff crop up, whether they're using it correctly or not.

It's not that big of a leap to think that people not versed in modern psychology are still falling back on the most famous psychologists' models of the psyche.

Pointing out that you're a grad student who understood that really just kinda proves my point.

I mean seriously: "Dialectical disorientation". What the fuck does that mean? Nothing. It means nothing. It's a term this guy made up to make himself sound smarter than he really is. I read several other passages in this where I knew what the individual words in the sentence mean but strung together make no fucking sense.

I think the reason most analyses of this type are dismissed is because most of the time Hollywood producers and directors are not pitching on this level. Sometimes they are and it's pretty evident, but I HIGHLY doubt that it's really there in a big budget summer action blockbuster.

My dismissal doesn't come from an unfamiliarity with the works of Jung and Frued, but a direct disagreement with those models. Having taken plenty of psychology courses, I am more than familiar with their work.

Shockwave wrote: Pointing out that you're a grad student who understood that really just kinda proves my point.

Your point that only a professor could understand it?

And really, all you said was that you read a fraction of the essay. Didn't understand it. Decided the whole thing was bullshit.

I think the reason most analyses of this type are dismissed is because most of the time Hollywood producers and directors are not pitching on this level. Sometimes they are and it's pretty evident, but I HIGHLY doubt that it's really there in a big budget summer action blockbuster.

Sure. There will always be the Michael Bay's of the world, where their flicks mean jack shit nothing. That doesn't mean that all summer action flicks are devoid of substance.

My dismissal doesn't come from an unfamiliarity with the works of Jung and Frued, but a direct disagreement with those models. Having taken plenty of psychology courses, I am more than familiar with their work.

Totally not what I was even talking about. All I said, was that a lot of people today still fall back on Jung and Freud's work, because it's more commonly known. So even though it's outdated, the same patterns and symbols keep cropping up in movies and lit. You can dismiss their work and their models, but you can't dismiss that people still use them.


So anyway. . .

Shitty sequels?

Mako Crab wrote: 1988, that thousands of Bat-fans were protesting the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman.

Never heard of this before until now. WHY? because he was short? too skinny? not bulky/muscular enough. Just goes to show how the fans often get things wrong more than right. Batman techinaclluy isn't a super hero since he has no super powers,so he doesn't need to be muscular,beefy,tall & super strong looking. Micheal Keaton was the best choice due to him being a top A-List actor in that time period. the man had major talent & actually knows how to act. he won multiple awards in his field.

If the Batman fans had their way,they would have cast some nobody newbie actor who was over 6'3" feet tall,muscular----> This guy would have had bad acting skills,been stiff with the emotions,came off as dull,booring & stale.

Now if "ONE" wants to talk about movie francises that got screwed by having talentless/awful/newbie actors play the star roles---> Look no further than the Live action TF movies,The star wars prequels,Superman returns,etc...