[quote]If you didnt grow up with transformers you would'nt like the movie as much. It just means alot more to those of us who remember the shows[/quote]
Uh, no. The original Transformers series was The Ten Commandments compared to Bayformers. I don't think anybody questions that it was fine for it's time despite being one long toy commercial. The fact that the Transformers movies can't even measure up to THAT, is sad as Hell.
I'll argue that if you grew up with Transformers, you have more reason than anyone else to despise Bay's atrocities.
The only thing I wish this movie had was more gore.
This movie is fucking terrible
[editline]02:38AM[/editline]
i went in expecting big stupid fun but this is just big fucking stupid
Black guy with AA12 made the entire movie worth it.
[editline]07:08PM[/editline]
I also think the "Hurr comedy hurr" movies are ruining the industry far more then the mindless action ones.
I [B]really[/B] want to see this movie.
Saw it today, thought it was alright. Was not really a good movie but good entertainment nonetheless, also we sat one row ahead of some sort of Dolph Lundgren fanclub that was kind of annoying.
I watched it yesterday and I loved it.
Saw this the other day and i must say, it's one of the best action movies i've seen in a long time. Really did enjoy it, i loved the little one liners and comedy bits in it too, like a good old fasioned arnie movie :)
what was the point in giving us that introduction to that warhead bullet thing that Crews had, if we never even get to see him use it ffffff
other than that the movie was hilarious and ridiculous, and i totally enjoyed it.
[QUOTE=postal;24276845]what was the point in giving us that introduction to that warhead bullet thing that Crews had, if we never even get to see him use it ffffff
other than that the movie was hilarious and ridiculous, and i totally enjoyed it.[/QUOTE]
I think he did use them during the final battle, where he fired at the guard towers which then exploded.
I must also say that this is the best action movie I've seen in a while, the story was fairly simple, but it was still good. Why am I talking about the story, anyway? Shit explodes and there's lots of gunfire. It doesn't need an complex plot.
I watched it a bit ago. It was funny and a good action film but it really had a weak plot line and was boring. If it had a more intense storyline that better described itself then I would of gave it a 10/10
Jet Li could easily take all those motherfuckers.
I hated this movie. Just as bad as "The Losers"
[quote]Why am I talking about the story, anyway? Shit explodes and there's lots of gunfire. It doesn't need an complex plot.[/quote]
It's sentiments like this that are killing Hollywood and personally pissing me off.
This movie is not an 80's throwback, it;s just a crappy brainless action film. It's one thing to watch more complex and interesting movies, and then something dumb but awesome and nostalgic rolls by and you check it out for the ironic appreciation or just to have a little simple, mindless fun, but if that is the RULE as opposed to the EXCEPTION for you, then make no mistake, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
People say movies are going downhill and that Hollywood has run out of ideas. The latter is complete bullshit, but the former depends on YOU. I can sit here and blame corporations for being exactly what they are by definition, namely, businesses that exist to make more and more money as cheaply and as regualrly as they can, but the CONSUMER drives their decisions.
IE, we usually get what we tell the producers we want. And if what we're telling them is we want the film equivalent of wallpaper paste with tepid action, a stupid plot and a complete squandering of the talents of a bunch of A-Lister "badasses", that's just what we're going to keep getting. The movies suck more and more, but as long as there's an explosion involved, idiots will keep excusing it by saying, "it has ACTION, who needs a plot or a story? I mean, it's not like a movie can be smart AND totally badass, right?".
You guys deserve exactly what you get if you follow this stupid line of argument. There is no reason, none at all, that a movie can't be deep, clever, well executed and feature complete and total badassery.
Of course, when these movies DO come out, they never make any money. Why? That's a GREAT question, because I have no fucking idea.
District 9 was worthy of being a true-blue best picture nominee. It was smart, it was a timely satire, and it was original. It was ALSO loaded with gore, peppered with awesome action, aliens, alien weaponry more badass than anything you'll find in fucking Halo, and a big fighting suit of robotic armor LEAGUES more interesting and more awesome than anything in any of the Transformer movies on their best day.
Kickass took a realistic approach to what might happen if some young buck decided he was going to try being a superhero while two other vigilantes were set to take down a powerful drug cartel. It featured a ten year old girl swearing like a sailor while cutting scumbags into ribbons with manic delight, a main hero who's primary superpower is literally being unusually resilient to having his ass kicked, and a wonderfully crazy Nocolas Cage playing the most awesome version of Batman in the history of Batman, all while having the creepiest, most hilarious interchanges with his homicidal daughter.
Watchmen follows similar lines to Kickass, also being similarly gory and shedding light on what a realistic world of superheros might look like. Ultra-violence met a grim, almost film-noir take on an investigation of a retired hero's murder, narrated mostly by a somewhat manic vigilante in an awesome mask and hat, also featuring a nude blue Godlike being with no apparent limitations, a sex scene as graphic and visual as an R-rating can allow for, and a bittersweet ending of the sort you simply don't GET from your typical superhero movie.
And Scott Pilgirm follows a young, slightly jerkish version of Michael Cera through a version of Toronto Canada in a world that follows the rules of old-school video games. Recovering from a devastating dumping, he's hooking up with a high-school girl to ease his recovery before meeting a dye-haired knockout named Ramona Flowers, who dates him while completely understanding his angle, and unknown to Scott, drops him into a MegaMan style war with her seven evil exes all bent on keeping Ramona single. The world itself looks normal, but beneath the surface is an array of status bars, warp channels and other illogical brouhaha, but the people sport some of the strangest of the strange. Battles become full-on arcade style beat-em-ups with special powers and hit-combos, with points and extra-lives awarded at every defeat, after which the loser explodes in a shower of coins. The editing is perfect, punchlines often occur with little more than a glance, everything is extremely well written and choerographed. There's simply no reason NOT to see this movie...
So...why did all of the above pretty much bomb...?
Short answer? People are idiots, and if they wanted to see Hollywood improve, they'd have turned films like these into FINANCIAL successes as well as CRITICAL ones.
People, critics for the most part aren't like they were 30 years ago. They know what makes a great movie, they know what make a fun movies, and they know what makes a shitty movie. Now, my opinion is that MovieBob is the greatest critic out there, and sometimes he'll divert from other critics because he understands something nobody else did, the guy thinks so deepy, but the critics don't hate your movies because they're film-snobs; they hate your movies, because your moves simply aren't any good. Pure and simple.
[quote]Jet Li could easily take all those motherfuckers.[/quote]
Too right. What good is it being a meathead when the most you've ever had to do was grab and wrestle around with people? Li has speed and agility; he'd floor any of the cast in this movie.
You need to post more often damn it.
[QUOTE=Namo;24281369]You need to post more often damn it.[/QUOTE]
Agree'd.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;24281265]
Short answer? People are idiots[/QUOTE]
i'd be more inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact Inception opened against a mindless special effects film (sorceress apprentice), totally won against it, held on to 1st place for 3 weeks, and has now secured a spot in the top 50 highest grossing films of all time with over $750 million as it's predicted final gross. Same deal goes for any Pixar film. hell if i know why some great films bombed and others didn't though, but it's not like ever great film has never made a lot of money. With the money Pixar and Inception made I'm willing to believe in audiences a little more.
Also personally I'm fine with mindless action flicks like this. They're fun, and for a lot of people that go to the movies, that's all they're after, a bit of good mindless fun. Still don't like it when a film like this performs way better than one that's real quality, but oh well, as long as quality films keep being made.
I thought Bruce Willis and Arnold would've done more than just talk. Would've liked to see them get some fighting. Could've used vin diesel too though.
[QUOTE=postal;24276845]what was the point in giving us that introduction to that warhead bullet thing that Crews had, if we never even get to see him use it ffffff
other than that the movie was hilarious and ridiculous, and i totally enjoyed it.[/QUOTE]
postal
dude
wtf man
Jason Staham
:love:
Haven't seen Jet Li in a while, where did he go?
[QUOTE=postal;24281615]i'd be more inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact Inception opened against a mindless special effects film (sorceress apprentice), totally won against it, held on to 1st place for 3 weeks, and has now secured a spot in the top 50 highest grossing films of all time with over $750 million as it's predicted final gross. Same deal goes for any Pixar film. hell if i know why some great films bombed and others didn't though, but it's not like ever great film has never made a lot of money. With the money Pixar and Inception made I'm willing to believe in audiences a little more.
Also personally I'm fine with mindless action flicks like this. They're fun, and for a lot of people that go to the movies, that's all they're after, a bit of good mindless fun. Still don't like it when a film like this performs way better than one that's real quality, but oh well, as long as quality films keep being made.[/QUOTE]
That's just the problem. Quality films getting made happen, but then they BOMB. Being a cult hit may mean something to us, but in the end it's a consolation prize, because the producers certainly won't care about it. If they have no incentive to put their effort into taking risks and using film as an artform, they'll stop doing that, because then they'll make the next Transformers or Expendables or BlindSide totally absent of any of those things, and it'll make unGodly amounts of money.
When a truly good movie or truly good movie studio becomes popular, it's a massive exception. Pixar locked itself into history by making the first film ever to be fully animated with 3D computer graphics, and by making it a timeless classic that resonates in the hearts of viewers a decade and a half later. In the meantime, they kept on impressing with a stellar record of original films, nearly all of which were superb and especially memorable. Nobody in the entire industry has a record like them. They made it big, and they deserve it, but they're one in hundreds, maybe thousands with similar devotion to making great art and telling a great story, but they could just never get their foot in the door.
You're right, Inception made it big, but y'know why, specifically? Because on top of starring Leo, they made the perfect move in their ad-campaign to mention it was by the director who brought you "The Dark Knight". I almost guarantee two-thirds of the ticket sales came from people spreading this mere fact. The good thing was, for once the buzz was right, and Nolan had once more hit it out of the park. So in the end, we can attribute Inception's success to the popularity of Batman, past and present. It probably doesn't hurt either that I don't think interest in "Apprentice" was all that high to begin with. It certainly wasn't this big bombastic effects movie like it wants you to believe. Nothing about it ever seemed anything more then "meh".
And that addressed, look at the long, sad history of mediocre big budget crap versus small budget, well written artsy film, with STILL better action scenes than the big budget movie. Look at good movies successes vs bad movie successes PERIOD. It's a pathetic trend. It's always been said people have a grand tendency to choose exactly what's worst for them. People as a whole don't have any taste. If they were never TOLD it was important and ancient, half the work held behind bombproof glass in the Louvre might get dismissed by the typical moron in favor of some shitty emblem some graphic-art student printed onto a T-Shirt being sold at Hot Topic. I'm really not even exaggerating.
District 9 didn't bomb, it made like 6 times it's budget of $30 million.
I'd say the only one on that list that bombed was Scott Pilgrim, it dropped to #10 on the box office list. Though it hasn't been released to many other countries (i.e Singapore. We don't get it until late October)
lol j-dude you really gotta learn to summarize your thoughts. but anyways
[QUOTE=J-Dude;24284770]So in the end, we can attribute Inception's success to the popularity of Batman, past and present.[/QUOTE]
eh i wouldn't give it that much credit. "batman" got the seats filled opening night and at least made sure it'd make a profit for sure. from then on was how the film got people talking about how strange it was like crazy, just like the matrix, hence the low weekend drop rates which are giving it lots of cash. if all it had going for it was "by the batman guy" you'd have probably seen higher drop rates. but this thread's not about inception so we should go there if you want to talk about it more.
also yeah like that other guy said, Scott Pilgrim is the only actual bomb you listed. The others at least made back their production budget.
[QUOTE=Soapcell;24285113]District 9 didn't bomb, it made like 6 times it's budget of $30 million.
[/QUOTE]
7 times when you factor in the worldwide gross. It did great.
I'm gonna see it tonight with some mates. Hoping that it's good.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;24284770]So in the end, we can attribute Inception's success to the popularity of Batman, past and present.[/QUOTE]
I would think somewhere around 1/4 of its success can be attributed to the internet.
I didn't really like it. I was expecting mindless action 100% throughout, but it didn't deliver. The talking sequences dragged on too long and the actual action scenes didn't really deliver for me. I was also disappointed that Crews didn't have a bigger role. He's so awesome it's a shame he didn't really do anything.
Although I have to say his final fight scene where he annihilates everything was pretty awesome.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;24284770]I almost guarantee two-thirds of the ticket sales came from people spreading this mere fact.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone is a movie dork, many factors play in, but ultimately it's how the trailers and previews draw people in.
[QUOTE=Fort83;24286318]J-Dude you say that movies are becoming less and less good in quality, that the industry is dying. Not so. It's evolving, ideas change, and with how much technology is changing, new ideas and opportunities arise for films. CGI has opened alot of doors for film makers to express their ideas clearer.[/QUOTE]
Exactly when were the merits of CGI in debate here? That debate is over, it was over after the first Jurassic Park proved you could render something that looked alive and present, and it's just gotten better with software ever since. I should know, I DO 3D animation. What I mean is that movies like Expendables or Transformers becoming financial successes have a snowballing effect on the industry, or at least of the Hollywood Blockbuster.
Oh sure, we'll always have SOMEONE making stuff for the Oscars, but in my mind there's no reason that a venture constructed with millions and millions of dollars behind it should be based upon 25 cents worth of writing. More and more the "big films", the ones that REPRESENT Hollywood for the world, are getting watered down for the enjoyment of the broadest possible audience. Namely, 18 to 35 year old white men...
Now, it USED to be that major target demographic in the olden days was men over the age of say, 50. That time had it's own problems. In fact, anytime Hollywood focuses on a single demographic, everyone else becomes poorer for it. Look at how the paucity of worthwhile black-centric or woman-centric films has made the world pay. If teenage girls had anything worthwhile to go see at Regal, would we have the problem of Twilight's repugnance in success? Would the loathsome hack known as Tyler Perry have EVER reached such unprecedented influence among the people he shamelessly exploits if anyone had made films with black people that were ONLY that? Films WITH black people, and not about people either living in the projects, or in Harlem, or in back-alleys unironically calling each other the N-word while wearing their belts around their thighs? It's really quite amazing how Karmatic Retribution can rear it's head in regards to the film, because we all pay when we hail one to the detriment of all others.
But I doubt any of that's going to be changing soon, because Hollywood will ALWAYS cater to the biggest audience. I just don't know if that target demographic is ever going to shift so we can can get different, more compelling material. Because believe you me, if it DOESN'T shift, and the producers realize they can skate by time and time again on boom-fests with no soul with nobody batting an eye, things are going to stagnate and blockbusters are going to continue to be disappointing to all but the most creatively bereft of our world. To turn that around, you HAVE to stop supporting those films, and start supporting the ones that MATTER. How do you find out what those are? Read reviews, learn a few things, get into the background of it. Who directed it? What's their history? Don't pay 15 bucks for 3D that was faked in post. Don't pay 11 bucks for something that the critics totally panned. If there's a general consensus among the critics and that consensus is BAD, 9 times out of 10 this is a bad omen, and you'd be better off checking it out on Stars or Netflix in a few months, if you absolutely must.
[quote]You have your opinion and that's your right, but it's my right to think your wrong. As the film industry evolves so do the movies. Great movies have come out recently that have made a big impact on the industry and the world. Avatar opened new doors to film in 3D. Transformers showed the potential of CGI. [/quote]I'm with you on Avatar, but Transformers? No, not even as a technical demonstration. The only reason the Transformers have so much freaking detail is because they pretty much become unnecessary exploded-blueprints every time they transform. The Transformers are the ONLY things in those movies that look unique from a CGI standpoint, but it's ruined by the fact that their designs are so piss-poor. They look terrible in mid-shots, garish and over-designed. Too many free-floating parts, no consistency in form, no sight lines. The first time I saw a full-shot in Entertainment Weekly of what Optimus Prime's model looked like, it was sensory overload. Too busy, too much going on, chock full of reds so bright they were orange and blues so bright they were purple. I can't imagine the degree of facepalming ILM modellers underwent when Michael Bay said what he specifically wanted and they realized they couldn't change his mind.
[quote]The quality of a film is solely based on what we as individuals think about it, not from what someone else (J-dude) says.[/quote]This is a saying we've had hammered in. That beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that some things are a matter of taste.
Let me be first to say up front, that if this is applied to the telling of a story, it's a LIE. If this is applied to graphic design, it's a LIE. If this is applied to the writing of dialogue, it too, is a LIE.
Why? Because these things have a SCIENCE to them. Forget about out-of-the-box things like abstraction, since we don't want to be here all day, and just look at how these things get done. It's not just an art, it's a science. People are taught specifically how to do it, and how to do it RIGHT. Go through any school, and you'll know what the wiggle-room is where "eye of the beholder" as a valid reason for the professor not be sure about what you made. Unless your deviation from the general rules has a MEANING, a SYMBOLISM, or just a REASON, it's a MISTAKE.
Look, if beauty were in the eye of the beholder, we wouldn't have women embodying the same sort of "hotness" across the board as supermodels. We would have skyscrapers made to look like cardboard boxes. While appeal can be a very personal thing, those who deviate from the norm are aberrations. They're either a little messed up, so they like it, don't understand it, so they like it for superficial reasons, or understand it better than others do, and can therefore appreciate it.
So in that "eye of the beholder rule", you basically have the people who generally agree, the oddballs, the ignorants, and the intellectuals. The first one are USUALLY right, but the last ones are ALWAYS right.
Therefore, I always listen to the intellectuals who know what they're talking about. Because in reality, taste is barely subjective at all.
I saw this with my friends and we laughed at how over-the-top it was. It's a dude movie and that's how you should watch it. This isn't fucking Tarkovsky we're talking about, what's wrong with you guys. I didn't have a whole lot of fun while watching Solaris, but it was incredibly philosophical and thought-provoking. On the other hand, The Expendables was a really really fun movie to see, but nothing else.
It's a [U]fun[/U] movie, not a [U]meaningful[/U] movie. Stop treating it like this was supposed to be a work of art.
I thought it was a good movie. I'd see it again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
