Ladon: Lord of Hesperides

Just to say beforehand, my main problem is with the second movie, though the first isn't the best either...

The 2007 Transformers movie and its 2009 sequel are just further proof that the quality level of modern cinema has lowered drastically.

I'm sure this isn't what you meant, bu this statement makes it look like you're judging modern cinema by two movies that have come out in the past two years or so. There are hundreds of movies made every year, and quite of the more recent movies are amazing (the one that comes to my mind right now is Pan's Labyrinth, which is relatively recent... I think ).

Not that all old movies are that great either; remember Plan 9 from Outer Space?

They also apparently forgot they're adaptations of children's cartoons and toys, because they also have random and completely unnecessary sexual humor and language (Revenge of the Fallen had six, count 'em, SIX implied uses of a certain curse word that has no place in any movie, let alone a movie like this).

In all honesty, the fact is that real people use words like that, and to put it in a movie does add a bit of realism to it (not that I personally agree with it, but it's true).

I said at the beginning of the second paragraph that these movies are proof of the decaying quality of cinema. Remember back in the 70s, 80s, heck, even the early 90s, where directors didn't have CGI to do everything for them and had to rely on other methods that required brains? I remember watching a documentry devoted entirely to how Steven Spielberg did the famous melting faces scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. He said that modern directors (such as Michael Bay) are lucky, and had CGI to do this kind of stuff for them, while older directors had to figure out other ways to do effects like that. They put a LOT of work in a five-second shot of their heads either shrinking, melting, or exploding, and it was chilling. When I first watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (I was about 13, I saw it late), no one ever told me about that scene, so I had NO warning. Obviously I could barely sleep that night. It was that well-done.

Agreed. Quite a few movies these days have only quality in their Special FX *coughD-Warcough* (and as a general rule, I try not to judge movies by their special effects.

Transformers does those two things pretty well as well, but the rest of the movie, including the plot, is so poorly done that I guarantee you twenty or thirty years from now people will forget these films ever existed. The characters, especially the Autobots, are all alike, and I nearly turned off the first movie the first time I watched it during the climax, because quite frankly, I didn't care one bit about what was happening and who would win. The Revenge of the Fallen climax is much the same way, only about twice the length and twice as repetitive.

I never thought that Michael Bay's aim was ever to make a great film; I've always figured that it was to appeal to fans of the original franchise, the people who grew up with these characters, and possibly stir up interest in the characters today.

Now not all the characters are that alike... okay, actually, they were. But this is mainly due to the fact that almost no screen time was given to them, making them rather hard to tell apart the first time watching. I remember the first time watching, I kept wondering , "Jazz died? Which one was Jazz? Was that the one with the Dirty Harry reference?" The second one was even worse in this respect, as half the Autobots weren't even named, and I found myself wondering why I should care what happens to them besides the fact that they're reinforcements.

Explosions and hot girls was my second point. That's another thing that Transformers relies on to market to teenage boys. Revenge of the Fallen actually set a record for the most explosions with the actors on set. You can tell with its climax. It was like they tried to hide the fact that there was absolutely no plot behind countless huge explosions. Call me crazy, after all I am a teenage boy myself, but I do like more than explosions and hot girls. I'd like a plot behind those explosions and giant robots beating the crud out of each other.

There was a plot. It held together much worse in the second movie than the first, though. I poked quite a few holes and asked quite a few questions throughout the second one. Such as (and if anyone can answer these, please do):

-If they're robots, how can Optimus Prime be descended from Primes? How does that work?

-If he's a descendent, shouldn't he refer to them as ancestors or fathers, not brothers?

-How long has the Fallen been around? He sounds like a major player in the war, and one that be mentioned in the first movie if he's been active. If he hasn't, where the fuzz has he been?!

-Don't you think the Autobots would be aware that the Decepticons could hack the governement's communications and make precautions? I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been done in the movie, but it shouldn't have been so easy.

-Are the world's governments really that bad at finding people?

-What the fudge is Energon anyway? And if Cybertronians need so bad, shouldn't the Autobots be looking into finding a source for it?

So yeah, I'd like some more plot behind those explosions, too.

That reminds me, I read a hilarious review of Revenge of the Fallen where they said there was a whole cast of robots in the movie, like Optimus Prime, Megatron, Jetfire, Megan Fox, etc. I laughed out loud, because it's true. The gal cannot act.

So it really wasn't just me? 'Cause I thought I might have been the only one that noticed. Glad I'm not just crazy.

Another point about this is something that just baffles me. You'd think the explosions, giant robots, and the hot girls would just appeal to teenage boys, right? I saw the lines of people waiting to see Revenge of the Fallen in theaters, and it was EVERYBODY. Boys, girls, kids, adults, you name it. I don't get it. I guess people just want explosions and giant robots and no plot, even girls. That completely destroys the ideas I had of what girls like in movies. Might have to remember that when I go on a date...

Point 1: Movies are not the best date ideas.

Point 2: People go to all kinds of movies, simply based on what their friends go see. It's usually a social activity. I''m one of hte few people I know that goes to the movies alone. My brother has gone to see many movies that he doesn't think are that great or doesn't really want to see that much simply because his friends are going.

masquerading (I love that word)

I love it too.

I'm sure that in the early 80s when Transformers started, they had no intentions of turning them into "epic" PG-13 summer blockbusters. And thus, they built on it being appealing to children, with giant robots turning into various vehicles, corny plots, names like Allspark, Megatron, Autobots, and so on.

First, I want to say that I think the word 'Allspark' was made simply for the movie. And I think that it's one of the few names that works, simply because it's simple and it makes sense in its context. Now the fact that it's used as a plot device multiple times in the second movie when the first movie makes it sound like it's now useless, that makes no sense...

None of that stuff really works for anyone older than eight or ten. Then sometime in 2005 or whenever production of the new movie started, someone decided that it would work for people older than ten. It doesn't. I watch these movies, and I laugh at times that are supposed to be serious, simply because I just can't take these things seriously. A bunch of robots that turn into cars and trucks? A villian named Megatron? A cube that turns machines into more giant robots? An alien robot who wants to destroy the sun? Call me crazy for thinking that doesn't work for a PG-13 movie.

Call me crazy, but it can made to work (in the case of the second movie, it didn't, but it potentially could). The fact is that there are several adults who still enjoy the Transformers story and its crazy words. I personally have no problem with the name Megatron when there's movies out there with villain names like 'Dr. Octopus' that are taken more seriously.

Though I have to admit that I have some issues with the name 'Bumblebee'. Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt that they have bubmlebees on Cybertron...

They tried so freakin' hard for it to be cool, but it simply drowned itself with its repetitivity. There's only so much you can do with giant robots and explosions, so it's just forty minutes of the same type of action, over and over again. I was ready for the climax to be over when it was less than halfway through.

And the fact that they brought Optimus Prime back just to make him use BIG GUNS didn't help either...

And that brings up the next point: the movies' lengths. This is something even fans of the movie have sometimes complained about. 150 minutes is just too darn long for a movie about giant robots and explosions. But apparently they need it to be that long (I guess 90 minutes or something more appropriate just isn't epic enough), so they added tons of pointless subplots, such as the Scorponok plot in the first one and that whole Alice/Pretender junk in the second. This makes me ask a simple question: Why, Mata Nui, WHY?!

And some of the subplots had potential to be worth something. They just weren't, though.

Long movies are long because they have to be, otherwise they drown in their length and become boring. The Lord of the Rings movies had to be long because they had so much plot to cover, and if they had stayed even more true to the books, they'd be far longer. Pirates of the Caribbean (at least the first and the second one, the third one's a different story) had a lot to cover, and most of the plotlines were necessary and added more to the story. But movies that are really long and don't have enough plot to be that length just slow way down and make the viewer feel like most of the movie could've been cut out and it wouldn't have mattered the slightest. King Kong is a non-Transformers example. It had a different problem than Transformers, in that it didn't add pointless subplots, but it did drag out everything to make itself three hours. That made the beginning and the ending rather slow and boring, although the middle part is really good and fast-paced, so that almost makes up for it.

The third Pirates movie had too much that it tried to cover in a single movie, thus the problems. And King Kong, while not one of my favorite movies, was quite an achievement (the fact that you could see insects buzzing around nearly made me have a geek attack).

And my final point is the fact it’s forgotten what it originally was: a franchise for people 10 and younger. Now, I’ve seen two types of fans of the new Transformers movies. The first type I call the Epic-ers, who say that the new movies are so gosh-darn epic and so gosh-darn amazing, and deserve to be with movies like the Dark Knight, the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and even the Godfather in terms of greatness.

These people need to be helped in multiple ways. But these are probably also the same kinds of people who don't really think about their entertainment, and only go to movie to kill time.

And the other type I call the Cheesers, who say that the new movies are cheesy and dumb, but that’s the beauty of it, and believe they’re not supposed to be great or epic, just two and half hours of mindless fun.

I have to say that I'm partially here, to be honest.

However, the Epic-ers and the Cheesers are both wrong. The Epic-ers are wrong because, well, just look at the concept: giant robots named Megatron, Bumblebee, and other dumb names, and lots of explosions. Doesn't sound epic to me, it sounds like a mindless action flick. And the Cheesers are wrong because they seem to think the movie was MEANT to be silly and mindless. If you look at all the evidence, I really don't think that's the case.

I don't think that they were trying to be epic, but they were trying to more serious than they really should have. If they were trying to be epic, I honestly don't think that they would have included all of those jokes.

They have Michael Bay as a director, who's directed attempting-to-be-ultra-serious stuff like Pearl Harbor and the Island, and two screenwriters who've written things like Alias, an early draft of Watchman, and even the new Star Trek movie. Heck, the second movie brought in an additional screenwriter, who’s written things like the Ring, Blood and Chocolate, Brothers Grimm, and Scream. We're any of those attempting to be mindless and silly? No, they were trying to be ultra-serious. And that's what they were trying to do with the Transformers movies: make them ultra-serious and epic.

The Brothers Grimm is actually listed as fantasy-comedy, I believe. And if I remember correctly, some of the early drafts for a Watchmen movie were pretty weird.

The new Transformers movies have severe cases of mood whiplash. At one point, there’s an “epic” battle going on between the army and a race of robot aliens, and at another point, it’s some geeky guy dealing with hundreds upon hundreds of bad sexual jokes and language.

I myself sat there wondering why the character of Seymour Simmons has been turned into such a nutjob for no reason...

Did the filmmakers really think it was necessary for that panther-like Decepticon to do that thing to Megan Fox's leg, and what's more, do it TWICE?!

I wondered that myself.

Now, mood whiplash is a problem in itself, but both of the things it whips between are definitely NOT for kids. And c’mon, people, it’s Transformers.

The fact that they included it doesn't bother me-- what does is the fact that so many parents took their young children to see the movie.

Every incarnation of the franchise has been for kids beforehand. Every one. And suddenly they decide to make it for an older crowd. Now, I don’t usually have a problem with this if it’s done right, such as in the Dark Knight, which took the Batman story, which was previously really cheesy and corny, and made it ultra-serious. But it worked, mainly because they did it right, and also because Batman didn’t start out as something for kids, but for mainly teenagers in the comic books.

Not a lot of people seem to take comic book characters seriously, which is a real debate today in the literature world. But in case you didn't realize, Transformers itself does have a comic line, though it's more aimed at those who collect the figures.

And Batman was never cheesy or corny. George Clooney's terrible attempt at being Batman was.

Heck, I’d probably take a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle PG-13 movie more seriously than Transformers, because the turtles actually started out in very adult comic books where they swore, drank, and killed rather brutally. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

Did they really?

*goes to go look up*

Bottom line, the new movies suck, and are completely overrated pieces of garbage, for all the reasons that I explained, and more.

I don't know if I'd say they suck, but they certainly are completely overrated. And the fact is that quite a few people agree that Revenge of the Fallen isn't much of an achievement and wonder why it sold so much.

So no, you're not completely alone, HI.

If you’re willing to argue with me about any of this, shoot me a PM. I’m always welcome for a debate.

I think this reply was good enough. Well, that, and I agree with you on several points.

Really good post, HI. I don't agree with all of the points myself, but it's well written.

Give me some time, and I'll do a more in-depth response....

How?

...that's just plain scary.

This is going to be the best serial yet.

Oes Noes!

I was going to say that...

Anyway, I hope you're able to remember it again.

I thank you for this wonderful blog entry! This subject is one I have thought about very often. Good job, Bones (Am I allowed to call you that, or am I too noob-ish? )