Transformers Age of Extinction

Duggy747

I liked Bay when he made silly but violent action movies with crazy set-pieces, not this CGI-fest which looks and feels the same as each other with some woeful humour thrown in.

The 1st Transformers film is the only one I genuinely think was ok, it had it's moments.

Mickeroo

Duggy747 wrote: »

The 1st Transformers film is the only one I genuinely think was ok, it had it's moments.

Same, I've watched it a few times since too. The score was brilliant and story wise it felt like Spielberg had more of an active role in it to me.

Duggy747

Mickeroo wrote: »

Same, I've watched it a few times since too. The score was brilliant and story wise it felt like Spielberg had more of an active role in it to me.

The sequences showing off their transformations were much, much better with the soundtrack enhancing it. It felt like a far better constructed film which is funny considering they weren't sure how the end result of compositing the Transformers into a shot would fully work out since it was all tennis balls on sticks :pac:

I can barely recall any notable CGI sequence from the others, the soundtrack in the others are very lazy in comparison as well with large chunks rehashed.

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

Bad Boys, The Rock and Pain & Gain were all perfectly solid popcorn fodder. I agree someone else should have been left take the helm of the franchise, I don't despise Bay as much as some people, I definitely think he can craft some brilliant setpieces and some of the shots he comes up with are brilliant, but he just uses the same tired old cliches in every film.

Two of the three films you mention are very early works though, and I believe those movies had the steadying hand of Don Simpson as producer (I think, open to correction here). These days he just seems to have lost the run of himself, happy to chase paychecks and indulge in a sort of cinematic hedonism.

Sure, he can occasionally produce a half decent setpiece, but it's all the orbital stuff around those moments that I hate: the saturated visuals; the unhinged, incoherent camerawork; endless product placement; hateful characters and crass stereotyping and so on. Ultimately, for me, I don't think he's good at how he makes his living; brainless action movies shouldn't appear brainless in their execution - there's an art to them and Bay just seems to use excess over skill instead.

But hey look, I'm fairly confident I've ranted about the guy before, probably in the Transformers 3 thread haha, so I'll leave it at that

CPSW

Why would I watch it? Because sometimes you need a good brainless action popcorn flick to watch, which the others were, and I enjoyed those (but the last one dragged on a tad).

Let me know how you get on with that paint...

Headshot

Oh why it cant just die. Stop destroying my child hood cartoon please

Am i the only one not impressed with the dinobots ?? i have seen 2, and both look like dragons , not only that but the scene with Optimus on Grimlocks back keeps reminding me of the line ......

Men riding dragons, throwing wolves at maggots

Potential-Monke

I just don't get all the hate. Sure, they're not going to win any Oscars, and the stories may not be the best, but it's Transformers blowing stuff up as best as Transformers can do. It's a brainless, popcorn movie, and Bay is good at them if anything. Maybe it's just me, but i don't want there to be deep meanings, hidden messages and Oscar worthy material in my action flicks. I want stuff being blown up, giant fricken robots, and well done CGI (which, in most cases for the Transformers films, is done well imo).

And it's Bay. He's going to appeal to the masses, as that's what makes him rich. I'd prefer to see more Transformers movies with bad acting/stories than a single Transformers movie that has all this stuff that the critics want but doesn't do well and won't birth a sequel due to the alienation of the masses who don't get the whole technicalities behind camerwork, effects, etc.

I will definitely being going to see this in IMAX and i'll be there at least a half hour early to get the good seats. Oh, and the trailer was awesome!

Mickeroo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I just don't get all the hate. Sure, they're not going to win any Oscars, and the stories may not be the best, but it's Transformers blowing stuff up as best as Transformers can do. It's a brainless, popcorn movie, and Bay is good at them if anything. Maybe it's just me, but i don't want there to be deep meanings, hidden messages and Oscar worthy material in my action flicks. I want stuff being blown up, giant fricken robots, and well done CGI (which, in most cases for the Transformers films, is done well imo).

And it's Bay. He's going to appeal to the masses, as that's what makes him rich. I'd prefer to see more Transformers movies with bad acting/stories than a single Transformers movie that has all this stuff that the critics want but doesn't do well and won't birth a sequel due to the alienation of the masses who don't get the whole technicalities behind camerwork, effects, etc.

I will definitely being going to see this in IMAX and i'll be there at least a half hour early to get the good seats. Oh, and the trailer was awesome!

Nobody wants works of art from these films just well told stories with the characters we grew up with (ie the Transformers) centre stage, a bit of heart wouldn't go amiss either. The robots have so much more potential than just blowing things up. They're not good popcorn films at all in my opinion (bar the first one to be fair), I would consider Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lord of the Rings, Empire Strikes Back, Jaws or more recently the Harry Potter series or the Hunger Games or Avengers or The Batman Trilogy or Star Trek decent pop corn films.

Ipso

Does anyone know what the rules were in the other movies?

Oafley Jones

I'll defend the first as watchable*, but 2 & 3 were some of the hardest slogs i've had in the cinema. Not even the spectacle of 70mm imax could save the third for me. It's not that I don't enjoy dumb action movies, it's the incoherent, sloppy and offensively stupid nature of these that's so off-putting. There aren't any characters I can become invested in - and no Bay's OP doesn't count; he's a ruthless prick and fairly hopeless leader.

I've said it before, but I'm convinced Bay hates these movie. ****er loves money though.


*I credit the small budget here.

pixelburp

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I just don't get all the hate. Sure, they're not going to win any Oscars, and the stories may not be the best, but it's Transformers blowing stuff up as best as Transformers can do. It's a brainless, popcorn movie, and Bay is good at them if anything. Maybe it's just me, but i don't want there to be deep meanings, hidden messages and Oscar worthy material in my action flicks. I want stuff being blown up, giant fricken robots, and well done CGI (which, in most cases for the Transformers films, is done well imo).
[...]

Ergh sorry but I don't have time for this argument because it basically suggests a ) there's no craft or skill to making a good brainless popcorn film and b) it tacitly suggests those who hate Bay hate those kind of movies anyway or are looking for the the wrong thing. That's simply not true - I'd talk about Die Hard all day as being a near-perfect slice of entertainment cinema if I thought I could get away with it

The fundamental difference with Bays films is that I don't honestly believe he's in any way competent in the field he specialises in - quite the opposite, to me he's as talentless as someone like Uwe Boll. His methodology is excess, not craft so I guess through sheer visual assault he papers over the massive deficiencies; but just because a films subject might be brainless doesn't mean its construction should be equally so.

I loved the first movie when it came out, but two movies since and i look back at it, It was terrible. I would like to see a Transformers movie with some brains behind it. Michael Bay is the Grimlock of the directing world.

MisterAnarchy

Looks like the same template as the other 3 films

* Annoying American family with teenage children ,check
* Jingoistic US Army ,check
* Paranoid American secret service agency,check
* Baddies attacking major US city ,check
* Autobots sacrificing themselves to save undeserving irritating humans ,check
* Some nonsensical historical back story ,check

Rinse and repeat

Zubeneschamali

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Looks like the same template as the other 3 films

What about these classics:

* Hot girl in short-shorts getting all sweaty
* Jive talking "ethnic" autobots
* Decepticon humping hot girl's leg
* **** jokes
* Optimus Prime as a stone cold killer

Taylor365

I always found the michael bay transformers films to be great films..

















...for people who know nothing about transformers or cinema. :pac:

TheIrishGrover

Isn't it amazing what a good trailer editor can do? I mean that almost looks like a proper movie. Think I'll give it a miss. That way I can avoid repeating the extreme embarrassment and discomfort at seeing horrifically racist "urban" robots in an audience that was almost 50% black in Blanch.

I'm not one for reading too much into things but I'm surprised they have still left those scenes in and still show that movie on TV. If it was made 60 or 70 years ago like many cartoons it would be shelved by the studio.

Oafley Jones

Racism takes many forms.

FutureGuy

I fcuking hate the ongoing b@stardization of my childhood at the hands of Bay.

_Kaiser_

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Looks like the same template as the other 3 films

* Annoying American family with teenage children ,check
* Jingoistic US Army ,check
* Paranoid American secret service agency,check
* Baddies attacking major US city ,check
* Autobots sacrificing themselves to save undeserving irritating humans ,check
* Some nonsensical historical back story ,check

Rinse and repeat

You forgot the obligatory shot of the American flag (outside the hero's house)

I agree with others here, there's nothing in that trailer that'll make me run to the cinema. Grimlock and presumably Swoop look nothing like dinosaurs and more like dragons, the bot whose head transforms into a gun reminds me of Terminator 4, WTF is with the green bot and his "coat"??, and far, FAR too much focus on the humans

Just like the last one I'll wait for it to show up in Blu-Ray form, watch it once and forget it.

Taylor365

1984 Transformers movie is all you need.


''You got the touch.....''

PirateShampoo

New trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkIPIkPPbdo

Adamantium

PirateShampoo wrote: »

New trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkIPIkPPbdo

After the blip of the Interstellar trailer, cold light of day awaits with this.
And now back to our regular programming.

Overheal

Ugh

Dear god why

Mr Freeze

I don't watch these films, but I do pop into the treads about them and see what ye all are saying. I like ye're giving out about Bay (whose films I refuse to watch any more).

After watching that trailer, the dinosaur looks ridiculous, but even worse than that is a Transformer with a full beard smoking a cigar. WTF!

pixelburp

Overheal wrote: »

Ugh

Dear god why

Here's what I want to know, who actually likes these designs? Divorcing the frustrated fandom for a moment, and just from a pragmatic and/or aesthetic point of view, to me those intricate & overly complex designs look terrible in motion and make action set-pieces a nightmare to follow. They're just a whirling blur of metal, often with only the bare minimum of visual identity to separate them from the last whirling blur of metal.

I just don't get why the choice was ever made to go with that design direction instead of something more traditional from the toyline. Did they test well? Did Hasbro like them? Was a reasoning ever made public? I can't help shake the feeling that were this still the SD era, the FX crews would have gone with less eye-watering detail, simply because it wouldn't have showed up on-screen, but because we have glorious 1080p it was an excuse to go OTT. 'Look how much detail we can add!' I can hear them cry.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Here's what I want to know, who actually likes these designs? Divorcing the frustrated fandom for a moment, and just from a pragmatic and/or aesthetic point of view, to me those intricate & overly complex designs look terrible in motion and make action set-pieces a nightmare to follow. They're just a whirling blur of metal, often with only the bare minimum of visual identity to separate them from the last whirling blur of metal.

I just don't get why the choice was ever made to go with that design direction instead of something more traditional from the toyline. Did they test well? Did Hasbro like them? Was a reasoning ever made public? I can't help shake the feeling that were this still the SD era, the FX crews would have gone with less eye-watering detail, simply because it wouldn't have showed up on-screen, but because we have glorious 1080p it was an excuse to go OTT. 'Look how much detail we can add!' I can hear them cry.

Cinema has long surpassed HD and all the retail would be present if you used a 10 or 20 or older age projector.i do think that the designs while overly complicated are impressive, there's some photo realistic moments with Optimus Prime in the series that ate just has dropping. The biggest problem is the frentic camerawork that makes everything look like a blur. A wide, steady shot could do wonders for the fights scenes in the series.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Cinema has long surpassed HD and all the retail would be present if you used a 10 or 20 or older age projector.i do think that the designs while overly complicated are impressive, there's some photo realistic moments with Optimus Prime in the series that ate just has dropping. The biggest problem is the frentic camerawork that makes everything look like a blur. A wide, steady shot could do wonders for the fights scenes in the series.

Strangely, and admittedly I'm working from memory, but I found Transformers 1 had the best looking effects, despite being the oldest film; perhaps that was because of the films thus far it had the least vomit-inducing camera work. I disagree a static shot would have solved the problem with identifying the Transformers. It definitely would have helped, but once the robots started fighting & jumping about, their identities still got very confusing due to their core design being formed from that complex metalwork.

Maybe it's just a case of old-man Pixelburp incapable of keeping up with these new-fangled action films.

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Strangely, and admittedly I'm working from memory, but I found Transformers 1 had the best looking effects, despite being the oldest film; perhaps that was because of the films thus far it had the least vomit-inducing camera work. I disagree a static shot would have solved the problem with identifying the Transformers. It definitely would have helped, but once the robots started fighting & jumping about, their identities still got very confusing due to their core design being formed from that complex metalwork.

Maybe it's just a case of old-man Pixelburp incapable of keeping up with these new-fangled action films.

I did, it's not without it's share of seizure cam either but stuff like the initial reveal of the Autobots done in one long shot or stuff like Bumblebee strolling up a hill and changing into the car in one seamless shot were really well done.

It's infuriating that Bay, with all the resources he has and the tireless effort of the effects team, can't just let the camera rest on the reason we see these movies for more than a few seconds. Pacific Rim managed it, so did Godzilla, just show us what we came for! And it's not like he can't frame a shot,he just needs to calm down the frenetic editing and juddery cam. Look at the shootout sequence in Bad Boys 2 with the camera flowing from one room to the next continously, fantastic sequence, no juddery cam.

Overheal

pixelburp wrote: »

Here's what I want to know, who actually likes these designs? Divorcing the frustrated fandom for a moment, and just from a pragmatic and/or aesthetic point of view, to me those intricate & overly complex designs look terrible in motion and make action set-pieces a nightmare to follow. They're just a whirling blur of metal, often with only the bare minimum of visual identity to separate them from the last whirling blur of metal.

I just don't get why the choice was ever made to go with that design direction instead of something more traditional from the toyline. Did they test well? Did Hasbro like them? Was a reasoning ever made public? I can't help shake the feeling that were this still the SD era, the FX crews would have gone with less eye-watering detail, simply because it wouldn't have showed up on-screen, but because we have glorious 1080p it was an excuse to go OTT. 'Look how much detail we can add!' I can hear them cry.

On the opposite side of the spectrum look at either power ranger movie. I mean bad example, but you still have toy-esque giant robots that are just vomit on the screen for different reasons