Brilliant news, everyone: Michael Bay has apparently learnt from his mistakes, and is getting rid of the things that made the first two movies bad:
Oh, and it’s going to have Shockwave in it.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-06-11-Transformers11_ST_N.htm
Michael Bay?
I thought the first movie wasn’t very good so I didn’t watch the second one. I have to ask a question though. If the first two movies were bad why would you think the third one had a chance of being decent?
Which really begs the question: Why the hell did you put the dorky comedy into the second one in the first place?
Did he really think there were people out there who answered the question “What would you like to see in Transforemers 2?” with “I hope it’s really funny.”???
I, for one, greatly enjoyed the first movie. Yeah, it was stupid but it was also insanely entertaining.
I hope this means the end of all the toilet “humor”*, unwanted underwear shots (of the male cast members, I have NO problem with Meghan Fox’s underwear shots) and the stupid dogs humping crap, in fact, just have Ironhide “accidentally” step on that stupid Chihuaua at the beginning of Transformers 3 (Tagline; “this time it’s really good, we promise!”) and solve the whole problem
Am I wrong in thinking that a movie, titled “Transformers”, about sentient alien robots with the ability to transform into different forms, should actually be ABOUT said alien-transforming-robots? and not the irrelavent interpersonal life of the meatbags around them?
More Alien Robots, less Humans!
:rolleyes:Or, regarding the “Twins” from “Transformers 2; Drunken Robot Frat Party”, I believe Mike Nelson categorized them perfectly in the Rifftrax for said film;
<The Twins are introduced, via their incessant squabbling and pratfalls>
Mike (sarcastically); Oh great, twin, mechanical Jar-Jars, thanks!
:dubious: …because Michael Bay has apparently learnt from his mistakes, and is getting rid of the things that made the first two movies bad? Do I need to spell it out?
The first two movies were bad because of the “dorky comedy”.
Michael Bay says he’s getting rid of the “dorky comedy” for the next movie.
The next movie is therefore less likely to be bad.
98% is less than 99% I guess. But I’m still not going out and putting $100 on the “Transformers 3 won’t suck” line in Vegas.
I saw the first, but I didn’t see the second movie (but have seen plenty of his other stuff). There is infinitely more wrong that just some poorly applied humor.
I would put that down on whether or not it’d make eleventy billion dollars.
Actually he makes no mention of fixing what was wrong with the first one, and Megan Fox won’t be in it. Given that even the first one was pretty shitty that’s not the best of signs.
I can pass the bad plot but the irritating main characters grate. Bay also epitomises everything I hate about modern action direction - it’s all a constant stream of quickly edited close-ups that leaves the impression that you’ve just seen something but you’re never quite sure what the hell was going on. Pah.
All signs point to shit.
I have faith. I had fun at the first first movie. Good CGI.
The second one… not so much. It was no story wrapped around stupid CGI, and thank God they’re getting rid of the two ‘teenage’ robots.
Agreed. Some of the “gags” were kind of stupid, but the rest of it was pretty good. The same cannot be said for Transformers: Revenge of the Plot Hole.
But nothing about a plot that makes sense or that has any kind of internal consistency, eh?