fett on 25/6/2009 at 03:24
Unless someone is posting links to nude pics of Megan Fox, this discussion is a waste of time. Trashing a Transformers movie is only a smidgen easier than trashing a Star Wars movie and surely we can all contribute more to the community by posting in the new evolution thread.
Keeper_Andrus on 25/6/2009 at 04:09
I only read Ebert's review, and I haven't seen the movie. But honestly, he's trashing it for being unrealistic? It's a movie about giant robots, of course it's going to be unrealistic.
And so the giant robots try and punch each other instead instead of blow each other up with super high-tech rockets? That's like trashing the original Star Wars because the laser guns shoot beams that go at about 1 m/s instead of the speed of light.
Mind you, I have no doubt the movie is horrible (the first one was, but fun to laugh at). It's just that some of his complaints are equally stupid.
Scots Taffer on 25/6/2009 at 04:29
It's a perfectly valid complaint, Andrus, realism isn't contained to "here and now realism" but the realism set out in the universe of the film. A good example of this is in Terminator Salvation: it may be a future full of killer robots but when we are explicitly shown that these bad boys are fucking HEAVY and mean business, when a vulnerable human character is punched full force in the face by one I think it doesn't take a scientist to realise that his head should look like a watermelon backed over by a semitrailer (all eight wheels of it).
Angel Dust on 25/6/2009 at 08:46
Exactly. Just because a film is based on some concept that requires suspension of disbelief as part of the entry requirements does not mean absolutely anything goes.
rachel on 25/6/2009 at 10:03
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
It's a perfectly valid complaint, Andrus, realism isn't contained to "here and now realism" but the realism set out in the universe of the film. A good example of this is in Terminator Salvation: it may be a future full of killer robots but when we are explicitly shown that these bad boys are fucking HEAVY and mean business, when a vulnerable human character is punched full force in the face by one I think it doesn't take a scientist to realise that his head should look like a watermelon backed over by a semitrailer (all eight wheels of it).
I like how that's how they found out about
Riley's death not being caused by Cameron in
The Sarah Connor Chronicles, because of the bruises and fight marks. Derek admits that if Cameron ever set her mind to kill mode even on him, there wouldn't even be a fight.
gunsmoke on 25/6/2009 at 11:32
Quote Posted by thefonz
My review:
Shia La Buff (sp?)
nigga please ;)
nicked on 25/6/2009 at 12:24
It does annoy me when people confuse realism and consistency.
Thirith on 25/6/2009 at 12:36
I think it's perfectly valid to describe internal consistency - sticking to the rules of the world - as a sort of fictional realism. Anything else strikes me as fruitless quibbling about semantics.
Gussss on 25/6/2009 at 14:03
here's some funny stuff,
How did Bob Orci own you, you ask?
I'll tell you how. It's fucking simple to sit in the comforts of your own basement force feeding the bag of cheetos and sign on a computer Mommy bought , and attack someones elses art, without having ever, ever in your fucking life, achieved a modicum of success or societal influence.
You God damn people aren't film critics, infact your elitist pedantic tastes in film is shit.
You mother fuckers don't know the first thing about film, yet you can so callously attack someone that orchestrates an ARMY of technicians and creative artists with a vision to produce mass-media entertainment.
Fuck you fleebs. Fuck every one of you fat cocksuckers that have ever said a cross word about a Lucas, Bay, Orci, Cameron, Sommers, whoever the fuck else you want to name. These mother fuckers have achieved more in 10 minutes of their lives than any of you fat pieces of shit will achieve in a life-time, and you have the audacity to presume to lecture someone that LIVES it on what constitutes high art? Fuck you.
You mother fuckers have that LUXURY. Cocksuckers. It's fucking EASY to tear down and destroy, but try building and assembling you hack talentless uninspired pieces of shit. Orchestrate a 200 million dollar budget and an army of actors, technicians, craftsmen, designers, writers. Fuck you.
How did Bob Orci own you? By even fucking showing up and giving you the profound courtesy of even READING what a true piece of shit that has never created anything has to say. You cowardly mother fuckers it takes a sack to create something all the world will see and unleash it on the public so that any small insignificant trashy piece of shit can "critique" it. That takes more balls than fifty of you fucks have. You pretentious pricks put your shit out there for everyone to judge and lambast and tear apart then see and feel the other end of what insipid, tired little fucks sound like after you've labored on a thing for months.
It's one thing to not like the results of a film but when people start attacking the artists or creators as if THEY COULD FUCKING DO ANY BETTER it begins to sound like salty pussy. Tired. Bland. Stale. Small. Salty Pussy.
Go fuck yourselves and bag my groceries fat cunts.
these guys are intense I can almost picture this guy pounding the keyboard...:eek:
nicked on 25/6/2009 at 14:47
Keyboard pounder completely missing the whole point of criticism in general there.
