Rottenwatch: TRANSFORMERS Revenge of the Fallen

Status
Not open for further replies.
sigh why do I keep reading spoilers. Well i don't really care anymore I guess. Still sorta looking forward to seeing it fri or saturday.
 
Saw a free screening yesterday.

6/10.

Way too fucking long.

Why does the CG in Transformers look like shit? It's poorly animated and often blurry.

Story was retarded.

You could tell it was a Michael Bay film though, by the style and comedic elements.

Would've been a lot better if they cut 30 minutes from it.

Movie was way too fucking long.
 
I'll be sad the day Ebert passes on.

His opinion is usually the first I look to when it comes to the consensus on any movie. 90% of the time, he's right on the money.

Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up

:lol

I believe the term for this is "CG diarrhea", Roger.

although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire.

He needs to re-watch 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'.
 
goodcow said:
Saw a free screening yesterday.

6/10.

Way too fucking long.

Why does the CG in Transformers look like shit? It's poorly animated and often blurry.

Story was retarded.

You could tell it was a Michael Bay film though, by the style and comedic elements.

Would've been a lot better if they cut 30 minutes from it.

Movie was way too fucking long.

how about the scenes with humans talking VS the screen time of actual Transformers?
Do Decepticons (besides Megatron) get to actually talk this time?
 
Dead said:
There is tons of silliness in Beast Wars, especially in regards to the shows humour.

Also, Beast Machines doesn't exist

I agree. But there is nothing silly about Rhinox and his machine guns of doom.
 
goodcow said:
Saw a free screening yesterday.

6/10.

Way too fucking long.
Would've been a lot better if they cut 30 minutes from it.
Movie was way too fucking long.

Goodcow.. were you at Lincoln Square IMAX last night?

Also, right on with your review. Way too long. 1:45 or less would have been perfect. There were a lot of drawn out scenes.

And after digesting what I saw last night, I have to say I liked T1 better. It was a bit drawn out, but still better paced, plot was tighter and was just more interesting. It was much easier to keep track of the whole roster and they were definitely more likable.

The IMAX scenes in T2 were worth it alone, but be prepared to be bored in quite a few parts towards the middle.

Edit: I also agree with Ebert, hah. His opening paragraph is perfect.
 
chubigans said:
Roger Ebert gives one star to Transformers (he gave the first movie three stars):

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

Roger Ebert said:
The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock. They share the film with human characters who are much more interesting, and that is very faint praise indeed.

There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines.

:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
goodcow said:
Why does the CG in Transformers look like shit? It's poorly animated and often blurry.
I...how did y.......wait, what? Was the projector crappy at your screening or something?

Actually wait, never mind, I'll just step out of the thread soon. I'm likely fighting a losing battle here no matter what discussion arises.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
I...how did y.......wait, what? Was the projector crappy at your screening or something?

He's referring to the gawd awful character designs and piss poor cinematography. Even ILM couldn't help the movies.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
I...how did y.......wait, what? Was the projector crappy at your screening or something?

I agree with this. On the IMAX screen there were definitely some noticeable, softer, "blended" looking CG scenes especially when off to the sides a bit. Nothing that abnormal for heavy CG + live action composited movie like this.
 
I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples. They have tiny little heads, except for Starscream®, who is so ancient he has an aluminum beard.

whaaaaaaa man ebert must have been on drugs when he wrote this review
 
Jim said:
I agree with this. On the IMAX screen there were definitely some noticeable, softer, "blended" looking CG scenes especially when off to the sides a bit.
I have yet to see an IMAX screening, but I saw no issues at our work screening on a digital projector. Granted, our equipment is also likely to be not typical of what you'd see in an average theater that undergoes a lot more usage or may not be as top of the line.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
I have yet to see an IMAX screening, but I saw no issues at our work screening on a digital projector. Granted, our equipment is also likely to be not typical of what you'd see in an average theater that undergoes a lot more usage or may not be as top of the line.

Well IMAX screens are 70 feet+ wide, 50 feet+ tall and curved so it's way easier to pick out inconsistencies. And they have rather incredible equipment (this theater in NYC definitely does), it's way more high end than a typical theater. Plus, not sure what the IMAX specific scenes look like on a regular screens. Zoomed out and widescreen I'd expect. It wasn't bad at all, but it was there.

goodcow said:
AMC25, with NYPD there for crowd control.
That's a fake IMAX screen right? And crowd control, why?
 
okay how about the Deceptiocns this time?
do they freakin' talk this time?

in the first movie, they seemed like brainless Kamikaze robots who had no sense of team unity and just sacrificed themselves to failure when compared to the witty G1 Decepticons who had their indiviual charismatic personanlities (Rumble, Thundercracker, Blitzwing, Astrotrain, Starscream, Megatron, Bombshell, you name it, the G1 Decepticon had freakin' personnality and drew appeal

this is what I completely hated about Bay's 1st Transformers = the Deceptiocons were characterless and were expandable
 
36%

Ebert destroyed the fans.

bay-sphynx1-678x381.jpg
 
I really liked the first one but from the previews, I'm getting a "we just did it for the monies" vibe (like with most sequels to summer blockbusters).

Meh...I'll probably still see it (with very low expectations).
 
chubigans said:
Roger Ebert gives one star to Transformers (he gave the first movie three stars):

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

Hilarious read :lol

Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars.
Did he even see the first movie?

The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire.
Aliens, Independence Day, Transformers, Predator, Predator 2, The Day The Earth Stood Still beg to differ...

Starscream®, who is so ancient he has an aluminum beard.

Makes me wonder what version of ROTF he saw...
 
Ebert sounds pissed through his whole review, wow.


Still seeing it, my mind tuned to "summer movie" mode...which I think many people can't do.
 
it is clear that Ebert got disconnected and does not care about the individual names of the Transformers (like mistaking Starscrem for JetFire/SkyFire)
 
gutter_trash said:
it is clear that Ebert got disconnected and does not care about the individual names of the Transformers (like mistaking Starscrem for JetFire/SkyFire)

That, and calling the Decepticons 'Deceptibots' will naturally make supporters for this film scoff at his review. What's that old man know anyway? He didn't even like 'Alvin and the Chipmunks'!
 
just came back from seeing it and i think it ultimately comes down to being too long/too much. i enjoyed the first one fine as harmless but fun bay food. the second one is pretty similar but with a bit more of everything which ultimately bloats the running time and the ability to enjoy the film.

so, yeah, eating one tube of cookie dough is a yummy treat....but trying to eat multiple tubes in one sitting will make it stop tasting so good and, eventually, you're going to wonder why you thought it was a good idea in the first place.
 
Jim said:
If they stitched all the IMAX parts together and cut out an hour then I would have really liked it. Other than that it was kinda all over the place, drawn out and a little too silly at times (hah), at least compared to the first.

And I see what people mean about the twins (After looking back into the thread)
Thanks for the feedback, Jim. Wow, about an hour too long, eh? The first one had its silly moments (John Turturro's character comes to mind) but this one sounds like double those moments.
 
Yeah, the movie definitely felt long. I recall glancing at my watch a few times. I knew it going in though, so it didn't bother me as much as I thought it might.
 
Gantz said:
He's referring to the gawd awful character designs and piss poor cinematography. Even ILM couldn't help the movies.

Character design is love or hate it, but piss poor cinematography? WOW. If there is one thing that is consistent in everything Michael Bay, its fantastic cinematography. He hires the best DPs and knows how to make a good looking movie.
 
The critic backlash at the movie is both ridiculous and hilarious.

I really enjoyed it, maybe it was a little too long in the middle, but thats mainly because I had to pee. I'll be there day one for the Blu-Ray and hopefully the extended scenes from the IMAX and maybe a few more.

The Optimus Unleashed forest fight is worth the price of admission alone.
 
SecretBonusPoint said:
The Optimus Unleashed forest fight is worth the price of admission alone.

that was definitely the high point.

as for my negative take on the movie, it's not like i went in trying to dislike the movie. i really enjoyed the first one and defended its entertainment value. for me, this is just a case of bigger not always being better.
 
There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines.
Cold blooded!
 
My faith in humanity worsened knowing there are people out there that loved the first movie, god that was a painful trial to sit through.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Character design is love or hate it, but piss poor cinematography? WOW. If there is one thing that is consistent in everything Michael Bay, its fantastic cinematography. He hires the best DPs and knows how to make a good looking movie.

it might be flashy but it is not fantastic. He has absolutely no originality at all. Any person who spins a camera around some crappy romance scene pointing at the sun automatically fucking loses.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Character design is love or hate it, but piss poor cinematography? WOW. If there is one thing that is consistent in everything Michael Bay, its fantastic cinematography. He hires the best DPs and knows how to make a good looking movie.

What sort of pixie-land do you live in where the final 30 minutes of Transformers 1 actually had a lick of visual sense? Or hell, ANY scene that didn't involve slow pans around Shia or Megan's pretty skinjobs!
 
So going to see this Thursday morning at 11:45 am. Cheaper tickets. IMAX. Game on. Seems like this is a love or hate type of movie. Guess I'll find out on my own. First movie was okay. I enjoyed it more because of the sound and effects show on screen. If this movie turns out to be the same as the first, I'll enjoy it for what it is worth.
 
Schattenjagger said:
for those that saw it, how accurate is the portrayal of
Soundwave

He's a satellite.

The first film was better, but this one is still okay.

It lacks charm and far too much screen time is given to the "twins", which could have been used to give some of the other autobots some real character.
 
God I love Ebert's "ripping-a-new one" style reviews. The review is an awesome read. :lol

Anyone else know of other recent movies he has totally butchered in his review? (except Year One)
 
gutter_trash said:
okay how about the Deceptiocns this time?
do they freakin' talk this time?
That was one of the things I'd forgotten I hated about the first movie.

Decepticons were always arguing and bickering with each other in all previous series, but in the movie they were pretty much silent and Megatron had like two lines.


Edit: Oh, except for that stupid tiny Decepticon that made noises like a fucking gremlin. WTF was that all about?
 
goodcow said:
Why does the CG in Transformers look like shit? It's poorly animated and often blurry.
I wouldn't say it looks like shit, and it seems to be better lookingin T2 as well, but I do know what you mean. In T1, when I was watching it in theater, it either looked like there was too much motion blur on CG or too little, and the animation of robot's closeups seemed a bit jittery when they would move slowly.

Now as I said, all this looks better to me in T2 from the trailers, but I was also really surprised at how much better the CG looked when I was watching the movie on TV. The problems with jittery animation seemed to disappear and the blur didn't seem that bad either. Maybe the 3:2 frame pulldown actually helped here somehow.
 
Lord Error said:
I wouldn't say it looks like shit, and it seems to be better lookingin T2 as well, but I do know what you mean. In T1, when I was watching it in theater, it either looked like there was too much motion blur on CG or too little, and the animation of robot's closeups seemed a bit jittery when they would move slowly.

Now as I said, all this looks better to me in T2 from the trailers, but I was also really surprised at how much better the CG looked when I was watching the movie on TV. The problems with jittery animation seemed to disappear and the blur didn't seem that bad either. Maybe the 3:2 frame pulldown actually helped here somehow.

It's a money saving technique as a result of the complex scrap metal mish-mash character designs. If the designs were simpler they probably would have more money to animate them better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom