Look at the new additions to the cast:
Sure Megan Fox and Shia LeBeuf are still going to be in it, but they’re not so bad. I guess if Michael Bay can come up with a better plot than the aneurysm-inducing Transformers 2, the awesome cast might be able to do the rest.
Or possibly the last movie has so thoroughly fried my brain that I don’t remember just how bad it was.
No.
Amen.
I’ll double up on that.
He’s made bundles of money with movies that are all explosions and cgi with a barely coherent excuse for a plot and jokes that would be intellectually offensive to a five-year old. Why would he change the formula now?
Fox and LeBeuf aren’t the problem, Bay and his writers are. What they need to do is get rid of the fratboy “comedy”.
In-character wit is good. Seriousness is good. Adding testicles to a giant robot for a one-off testicle joke is grounds for exile.
Robot or no, a one-off testicle is no laughing matter.
A cast is only as good as the script and the director.
Wow, you’re saying the second one wasn’t even as good as the first one? If that’s so, then no, there’s no way the third won’t suck too.
Transformers III will suck so hard that five Autobots including Optimus Prime will converge and form a giant vacuum cleaner in an homage to Spaceballs.
Yeah, I saw the first one and it was TERRIBLE. And I have no problem with spending a couple hours watching things explode if it’s halfway decent. And it was just fucking BORING.
And then I heard from people who actually liked the first one that they second sucked, in comparison. It’s actually hard for me to imagine a movie that bad, since the people who liked the first movie are obviously REALLY easily entertained. I’d rather stare at a dog turd for two hours that see the third movie. I’m sure it will be at least as edifying.
Obviously :rolleyes:
I quite enjoyed the first one, despite realizing it’s a silly, dumb movie. That in no way affects my judgement of other films, let alone everything else I might find entertaining.
I still want to know where the testicles came from. None of the robots involved had wrecking balls!
Same here. I enjoyed the first because Transformers were the coolest thing ever when I was a kid. Watching them on the big screen with excellent special effects was quite a treat. Sure the script sucked and the acting wasn’t anything special. By any standard it was a bad movie. It’s a Michael Bay film about sentient robots from outer space for crying out loud. But it was more than that: it was a piece of my childhood come to life and I was thoroughly entertained by it.
It was about 15 minutes into the second film that I realized that I did not need to repeat the experience. One film would have been sufficient, it did not need a sequel. It certainly did not need a sequel which was inferior in almost every way: direction, acting, writing, cinematography, editing…etc. The one thing the sequel had going for it were the special effects, which again were excellent.
I don’t have any hope that Transformers 3 will be good. I have no plans to watch it unless Rifftrax puts out a commentary for it.
Wrecking balls. That is awesome. I must find a way to work that into a conversation and while referring to my own junk.
The first one was watchable if you fast-forwarded through everything that didn’t feature either transformers or the soldiers. The second one didn’t even have that.
Ah, don’t sweat it. As long as you know that your enjoyment of it doesn’t mean it’s not terrible, your taste isn’t too suspect. At least that’s what I tell myself - I love this movie, but it is dumb.
If you take the second film, and take out everything that’s not Optimus Prime beating the shit out of another giant space robot, it’s a passable (albeit short and exceedingly mindless) bit of entertainment.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a mentality that you could not successfully market “Optimus Prime Blows Shit Up and Tears Apart Evil Space Robots and then delivers a short lecture about morality”. I’d personally pay to see just that in the theaters, but alas, they’re going to continue trying to shoehorn things that aren’t Optimus Prime, giant fighting robots, and big explosions in there. So it’s probably going to suck. The magnitude of suckage will be determined by the ratio of Optimus Prime kicking ass and/or things exploding scenes to all other scenes.
(I honestly do think that if they made, basically, “Autobots fight Decepticons and in the course of it everything explodes,” they’d make a killing.)
I can’t find it now, but there was a pretty good review somewhere about how Transformers 2 was the best movie ever because of how aggressively it eschewed any sort of plot. The only way to make Transformers 3 not suck will be to make it more insanely non-sensical and over the top then Transformers 2. Micheal Bay needs to basically make the movie he so obviously wants to, a surreal two hour music video where giant robots blow up famous world landmarks for reasons that not only make no sense, but are designed to actively go against any possible explanation.
Optimus Prime should tell someone that they must protect the Eifflel Tower at all costs, then he needs to turn around and blow the Eiffel Tower up, transform into a dump-truck and fly away. Meanwhile we can flashback to Shia Labeouf’s adolescence in medieval France, where he was raised in the Sultan’s harem by scantally clad woman. While there, we see he attended a suburban Highschool where the students were Hugenot Peasants, but the teachers were Autobots. At somepoint, due to a hilarious mixup, Shia will try and seduce a teacher, but end up accidently having sex with a regular non-transforming motorcycle. Eventually his Chem teacher will help him invent a super-weapon which he must race to bring to New York City to keep the Decepticons from blowing up the Taj Mahal.
The second movie was pretty close to this anyways, if they just went that extra step, they could have a summer blockbuster that would make the whole genre obsolete.