Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
did anyone look, and can you see my point?!
you're complaining that transformers was too..."gay" ...or something.
...rather than complain about how it was imply a wretched piece of crap, no matter what characters "ruined the experience" for you; how it should never have been made, and Bay should have been executed a decade ago to spare us the previous generation of BS that he's pooped into our culture.
obviously, you have no point.
I havent seen it yet, i cannot wait to see it. Michael Bay doesnt create award winning literature he creates films that entertain. He does well in his previous films. Its like comparing a shakespear play to a gladiator fight.
Shakespear has full character development and is well boring as a fly fucking a cat
Gladiator fights: The warriors have a weak backstory, but the entertainment is in watching them do battle.
I get it.
You guys tend to lump this and other Bay flick with other action movies (and sci-Fi action)
Terminator 1/2
Alien/Aliens
Ronin
Bond*
etc...
You mentioned Gladiator movies, so how about Gladiator? or Braveheart?
you somehow seem to think Transformers stands in the same line as these flicks. They are simply there for action and to mindlessly entertain us.
See, it's quite alright for one to be impressed and sufficiently entertained by all the shiny lights and boom-boom and boobies and more boom-boom; knock yourself the fuck out. If that's what you get out of other action flicks--great.
To think, however, that Transformers exists in that same light--that its utter refusal to expect the audience to even care about story, to care about its characters....to care about what makes a film a film, is completely asinine. It doesn't bother me or any critic in the least that you don't "get" this. No one gives a shit if you defend your meager quotient for entertainment with charges of "elitism" or "rods up asses" etc. Whatever.
We know that your kind doesn't understand film--we already know that. It is no mystery. Critics love a lot of action films. They highly praise solid flicks that treat you like a rational person should be treated (see: any film from James Cameron or Ridley Scott). We already know that you don't realize the real reason you like Die Hard is because you have become highly invested in McClain's character--you actually want to see him win. You don't know that the action is merely ancillary. See, we get it.
Telling us that we don't "get it," b/c we don't like the boom-boom not only misses the point of criticism entirely, but further exposes your naivete. To assume that explosions and fast cars only = entertainment, and that ALL movies with explosions and fast cars are equal, is patently stupid.