TF Views

I still don't see what any of this has to do with TF3.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Dominic wrote:On the other hand, it is possible to have an opinion based on a set fact, (does a movie have sloppy editing, bad acting, bad writing....).

Those are hardly set facts. Again, what "Good" and "Bad" are is opinions from an individual.

I'm with Dom on this one. Without a set standard by which to judge good or bad, the terms become meaningless, and value judgment becomes impossible. Which makes this particular argument pretty much meaningless as well.

Now if you want to substitute the more subjective "enjoyable" for good, and "unenjoyable" for bad, one can make your argument. If you want to move beyond criteria for what constitutes a solid, logical, working narrative and get into what an audience enjoys or responds to, then again, subjectivity is fine.

transtrekkie wrote:I still don't see what any of this has to do with TF3.

It comes down to what one expects in terms of basic competence in a movie. Bay makes the kinds of mistakes one would probably expect of a very careless film-school student, or a small child. I tend to expect basic competence in terms of editing, writing and basic logic. Bay does not deliver that.

I argue that TF3 would be improved if Bay just mastered the vary basic elements of movies.

Dom

Dominic wrote:

transtrekkie wrote:I still don't see what any of this has to do with TF3.

It comes down to what one expects in terms of basic competence in a movie. Bay makes the kinds of mistakes one would probably expect of a very careless film-school student, or a small child. I tend to expect basic competence in terms of editing, writing and basic logic. Bay does not deliver that.

I argue that TF3 would be improved if Bay just mastered the vary basic elements of movies.

Dom

I see and that lead to a discussion about what audiences think is good. I agree, Bay should learn that shaky cam sucks, doesn't seem more realistic *at all* and just shoot a proper action sequence. Seriously, I have no idea how shaky cam became thought of as "more realistic", I sure as hell don't see like that when I'm running.

This is one of my favorite reviews I've read so far on the subject:
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/scree ... 59047.html

Salient quote: "I’m fascinated by how close Bay’s id is to the surface in the appalling films he directs, and what a deeply unpleasant and angry man he seems to be. There is no sense of joy or whimsy in these Transformers movies—distressing because they are intended for children—nothing but pulverizing fetishization of ’roid-raged, militaristic, white alpha-male privilege." Sean Burns

Maybe I just like this because I'm a film studies nerd, but these things are important to me, and people arguing that quality is arbitrary and that a movie can be ugly and hateful if it's entertaining upsets me.

The idea is that there is somebody with a camera "right there" as the movie is happening. That sort of thing is realistic, (look at hastily taken news footage). But, it does not actually add much aside from some faux realism to a story that is hardly realistic to start with.


The critic Don quotes is a different kind of problematic extreme. They want movies to conform to a genre, and will complain about a lack of "whimsy", even if the whimsy is uncalled for.


Dom
-more bothered by incoherent editing.

I don't think he's arguing it to conform to a genre. I think it's more a matter of how even the "light-hearted" humorous moments of these films rely on hate and crudeness to get a cheap laugh. A film with whimsy could draw humor out of the fact that there are giant alien robots on earth without needing to have them fart or hump a leg.

andersonh1 wrote:I'm with Dom on this one. Without a set standard by which to judge good or bad, the terms become meaningless, and value judgment becomes impossible. Which makes this particular argument pretty much meaningless as well.

Even with a "set standard" we still obviously get disagreements over what a "good" movie is or what a "bad" movie is. A movie is more than just the sum of its parts.

transtrekkie wrote:I still don't see what any of this has to do with TF3.

As I recall, Dom said something about Kurtzman and Orci (who we can assume will write the next one given they wrote the first two) sucking at writing to which I disagreed and things kinda went from there...

I know how to make TF3 better: Get O6 to do the soundtrack. He rules.

Actually, (and no slight to O6), I like the score of the movies. (That is about all I like about them, but hey....)

donosaur wrote:I don't think he's arguing it to conform to a genre. I think it's more a matter of how even the "light-hearted" humorous moments of these films rely on hate and crudeness to get a cheap laugh. A film with whimsy could draw humor out of the fact that there are giant alien robots on earth without needing to have them fart or hump a leg.

I can see that actually. Of course, these movies tend to be pitched pretty low. And, farting and leg-humping are easier to understand.

Of course, "whimsy" is often an excuse for other types of obnoxiousness in a story that can be just as distruptive and intrusive.

Dom
-still amazed at how much like a kid's play session the movie was.