I don't think Hasbro had much say in this movie... and actually, I think they should have. Maybe then there'd be no Wheelie or Pretender robo-chick, who were not only lame but won't make good toys.

<sigh> Please stop justifying the movie's weaknesses with the supplementary novels and comics. A movie needs to stand on its own. You want to spend your money on the extra junk, go ahead - the rest of us have every right to complain if our RM12 gives us an unsatisfying experience.

And you wonder why fanboys get a bad name.

<hachoo!>

Fox strikes me as a smart girl who got a major career break in a role that she's ultimately not very satisfied with.

And Bay strikes me as an arrogant ass.

Specifically, it's an example of an "idiot plot". Sam was basically an idiot for not telling someone about the shard, e.g. Bumblebee - and Bumblebee was an idiot for not wondering why the household appliances suddenly came to life and making the connection to the AllSpark.

If either of them had been a little smarter - well, the movie might've been a lot shorter. That's the definition of an idiot plot - the story can only proceed if everyone suddenly becomes an idiot.

The key factor here is believability. A character doing something foolish that kicks off the whole story is forgivable, as long as we see them try to deal with it in smart ways afterwards. But if everyone acts stupid over and over again, for no other reason than that there'll be no movie if they don't... well, that gets very very annoying.

Because you no longer believe that these are real people. You start to see them as characters in a movie with a very lazy script.

Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Die Hard.
The Incredibles.
The Dark Knight.

Action movies shouldn't require you to "leave your brain at home" to enjoy it. If less people tolerate this kind of movie, perhaps we could have more of the above kind of movie.

I'm actually quite amused by how Bayfans like nimrod and alanyuppie try so hard to cover up all the stupidities in the plot.

Does anybody remember the 1995 film Congo? I remember hearing that there were a number of die-hard fans of that movie too, when it first came out.

Aww, iz you upset that I'm not joining you in defending your favouritest movie ever against the mean meanypants? I said I liked it, I gave it 3 stars, so you and me should be best buds and stuff, but now I'm just another meanypoopyhead!

You seem to have trouble with complex ideas, so I'll explain this using the smallest words possible: I liked the movie, but I don't like you. You're being a total spazbag defending the dumbest things about it, and all you're doing is proving that you're even dumber than the movie.

A Bayfan, snobbish??

If it makes you feel any better... a friend told me that when he watched it, during the robot-humping scene... the whole cinema went

It's the difference between laughing with the movie and laughing at the movie.

http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&q=%2...&meta=&aq=f&oq=

It's a pretty common phrase.

There's a rule to all stories, especially sci-fi/fantasy like Transformers and Spider-Man: The story has a limited number chances to ask the audience to suspend their disbelief. All such stories will ask of you, "We know this is unbelievable, but just please believe it for now, okay?" But it can only ask this very few times - often only one time. And most often only near the beginning of the story.

If it asks this too many times, if it keeps asking this over and over again, the audience will just reply, "Eh, enough lar. You think we stupid ar?" That is a story that insults the intelligence.

I'm also LOLing at how he compares the dumb plot holes in TF2 with the romance in Titanic.

Aww, isn't he cute?

I think he's being deliberately disingenuous. Claims to have never heard the phrase "insult one's intelligence".

I think he's getting more and more pissed off.

Let's keep going.

CGI technical quality is only one part of what makes a good movie. If everything else - plot, character, acting, pacing - fails, it's still a bad movie.

And please, stop comparing to "award-winning" or "super serious" movies. Nobody is bashing it because it's not as good as The Godfather. People are bashing it because it's not even as good as, oh, say, The Scorpion King.

Um, no.

"Someone here" mentioned it because it was a movie that didn't have half the hype and anticipation of TF2, yet turned out to be more fun and enjoyable.

It was certainly smarter than TF2. But then again, that's not saying much.

I've heard this analogy before, but not as a defense of movies that aim to be rollercoaster rides and nothing more.

A rollercoaster ride has no story, characters, and does not attempt to engage you emotionally. A movie does, all 3. Unless you make a movie that's wall-to-wall 2-1/2 hours of action scenes and explosions... that would be a true rollercoaster movie.

You were a fan of Twilight??

You owe him.

---

Added on July 8, 2009, 9:04 pmWow. You're actually proud of being unintelligent. Bravo.



This post has been edited by n00b13: Jul 8 2009, 09:04 PM