Star Trek teaser w/Cloverfield -

[Cary L. Brown]

cooleddie74 said:M:I III blew. It was only moderately better than the second movie. I didn't get much out of it, even with some really good acting in the cast.

Well, honestly, I HATED "M:I" #1. It's a movie I refuse to even watch again (that's pretty rare). It was, IMHO, AWFUL. (And not JUST because they turned Jim Phelps into the @#$*ing VILLAIN! That, in Trek terms, would be like making McCoy into a child-molester.)

The second one was... well... LAUGHABLE. It was just the "Tom Cruise Acts Kewl Show." It wasn't HORRIBLE like the first one, but it was... annoying?

Then came the third one... and they created a film that, honestly, felt like it was in some way related, at least, to the old TV show. There was actual TEAMWORK involved. Cruise was still the star, but he wasn't the whole movie. And the movie felt more "real" than either of the prior two.

So... you may think it "blew" but I, personally, thought it was BY A HUGE MEASURE was the best of the bunch.

(Now, if only they were to show us how the villain of the first film was actually Jim Phelps' evil twin, clone, or mirror-universe duplicate...)

 

[mredom]

Kryton Kryngle said:

Sharr Khan said:

I wasn't that impressed with Transformers, the last blockbuster screen credit of Orci & Kurtzmann.

Ah but there's no denying it was a blockbuster-hit, something Trek has seldom been. This movie could only hope to do as well as Transformers has done and "fail" as badly.

It was the third highest-grossing movie of the year. Too bad it was utterly moronic and without any value of any sort. I would LOVE that time back, just like every other Michael Bay piece of shit I've wasted any amount of time in my life doing.

Hope the issue was all BAY (which is a safe assumption), but at the same time, it's not encouraging...especially without having the option for a script doctor to punch it up with the WGA strike and all.

I enjoyed it-it wasn't Citizen Cane, but it WAS enjoyable and entertaining, and action packed, and true to the source material for the most part. The source material was a cartoon designed to sell toys, so I imagine they will be able to do more with an actual drama with characters and all involved.

Just my two cents-OK 3 cents!

MRE

 

[Jon1701]

Just re-watched Transformers.

Yeah, it's not as much fun on the small screen (the action is a little confusing - the camera is in too close), but as others have remarked - the dialogue is pretty snappy. Still enjoyed it.

However...

The Transformers are pretty undeveloped as characters which is a little worrying. Not sure if this was a SFX problem, but only Optimus Prime gets any screen time really. Jazz is so undeveloped that its hard to feel any emotion when...

Spoiler: What happens at the end of Transformers

he is killed. I mean, he has only what - 3 maybe 4 lines in the movie?

 

[mada101]

My problem with 'Transformers' was that I wanted it to be a giant toy commercial. I didn't go in thinking "Hey, I could really do with seeing a movie about a boy and his car...and where some robots, that I can't remember the names of after they are introduced, fight it out in the background for some typically forgetful McGuffin. Oh, and I hope it includes lots of Michael Bay's patented Confusing Action Sequences. And, as the cherry on the cake, I want it to mostly piss off the life-long fans that are sitting around me because they were stupid enough to be drawn in by the use of some of the original actors".

Other than that, I liked it

 

[Sharr Khan]

some typically forgetful McGuffin.

Oh you mean one exactly like the 'Autobot matrix of leadership'? Nope that's not part of the mythos not all.

I think the "a boy and his car" was the heart of this film and am glad it wasn't just a toy commercial from whence the property was born.

Sharr

 

[mada101]

Sharr Khan said:
Oh you mean one exactly like the 'Autobot matrix of leadership'? Nope that's not part of the mythos not all.

I have no idea what you mean, as the 'Transformers' movie is the only Transformers-related thing I have ever seen. From what I did know about it ("Robots in disguise!" They turn from cars into robots and fight each other), I was expecting...well, things turning from cars into robots and fighting each other. And I only got that in the last third of the film.

I wanted the Transformers to be the characters. Not some kid and his mechanic girlfriend.

 

[Sharr Khan]

mada101 said:

Sharr Khan said:
Oh you mean one exactly like the 'Autobot matrix of leadership'? Nope that's not part of the mythos not all.

I have no idea what you mean, as the 'Transformers' movie is the only Transformers-related thing I have ever seen. From what I did know about it ("Robots in disguise!" They turn from cars into robots and fight each other), I was expecting...well, things turning from cars into robots and fighting each other. And I only got that in the last third of the film.

I wanted the Transformers to be the characters. Not some kid and his mechanic girlfriend.

Oh I took it from your post you were a long time TransFan - the Matrix or the "Cube" has existed in Transformers from at least around the time of the animated movie and I think even before that in an incorporeal form in the Marvel comics.

no screenwriter in his right mind would make a movie with a huge budget rest squarely on cgi robots and only a tiny human element - but you can be assured they'll be more Transforming robots in the sequel, something that wouldn't have been made possible without the boy and his car to make those who generally don't care about explosions pay money to see the movie.

Sharr

 

[mada101]

^ I don't really care about explosions...unless I'm going to see an action movie.

 

[Sharr Khan]

mada101 said:
^ I don't really care about explosions...unless I'm going to see an action movie.

I hope you don't mean to say Transformers ever was anything else but that, in any incarnation - it was a toy commercial that was loaded with "action". Various incarnations have had some "deeper" bits but even then its still a way for Mattel to make money.

Sharr

 

[mada101]

Sharr Khan said:
I hope you don't mean to say Transformers ever was anything else but that, in any incarnation - it was a toy commercial that was loaded with "action". Various incarnations have had some "deeper" bits but even then its still a way for Mattel to make money.

But the film took far, far too long to get to the Giant Robots Smashing Into Each Other, which is what I was expecting from the poster/trailer/general background I picked up. For the first half I was sitting there thinking "Where the hell are the Transformers? Come on, I know that the car is one. So when is it going to transform and blow something up?".

I didn't go in expecting a touching Spielberg* tale like 'E.T.'. I went in expecting one of Michael Bay's typical explosion-filled no-brainers...only hopefully made better with Spielberg's touch and the fact that there are Giant Robots of Transformness in it. And any characterisation that was necessary along the way should have came from the robots. Which it didn't, because apart from Optimus Prime and Megatron, I couldn't for the life of me tell you anything about any of the others. Not even that one that died near the end.

I still think it was a nice popcorn movie. Just not as good as it should have been. My main beef is that I didn't get the film I was expecting to see.

* Incidentally, I hated his version of 'War of the Worlds'. But then again, I'm a huge fan of the book.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I didn't go in expecting a touching Spielberg* tale like 'E.T.'.

Well he was one of the producers of it so you should have expect for the movie to have had some of his mark on it as well as Bay's. Trust me, the film you wanted would have crashed at the box office...

Think of it this way now that's all established you'll get tones of robots pounding on one another sooner in the next movie. Provided you go to see it.

Look don't misunderstand me I thought the robots were underused but I also understand the choice behind how the thing was put together and respect that.

I went in expecting one of Michael Bay's typical explosion-filled no-brainers...only hopefully made better with Spielberg's touch

The boy, the girl, and the car were Spielbergs "touch" very typically Spielberg, can't have it both ways now. I liked those parts of the movie.

Sharr

 

[mada101]

Sharr Khan said:
The boy, the girl, and the car were Spielbergs "touch" very typically Spielberg, can't have it both ways now. I liked those parts of the movie.

Sharr

By that, I meant decent characterisation. As soon as I heard he was involved, I actually knew he'd be introducing a kid into it (though, just to torpedo my own line of argument, I have been told that there was a kid-type in one of the cartoons as well).

I generally care about the people in a Spielberg movie* - it's something I feel he does well. But it didn't work here for me. I honestly didn't care about any of them. I had more emotion vested in the Warlock from 'Die Hard 4.0' than I did the boy in this movie (I can't even recall his name!). Thankfully, the actor playing him was top-notch, and he had some good one-liners. But as for his girlfriend or anyone else, well, they were flat and 2-D for me.

*Again, 'War of the Worlds' is the exception. I wanted that little girl and her idiot teenage brother to get vapourised soooo much. But then again, I guess my dislike of the flick probably clouded any possible connection I might have with the people in it

 

[Sharr Khan]

*Again, 'War of the Worlds' is the exception. I wanted that little girl and her idiot teenage brother to get vapourised soooo much. But then again, I guess my dislike of the flick probably clouded any possible connection I might have with the people in it

Well I generally had that same feeling about that movie - but then, it was not helped by the fact it was a Tom Cruise vehicle for me either.

For me the people worked in Transformers all of them felt like they belonged there. Shia's gonna be a huge star I'm sure.

Sharr

 

[mada101]

I do like Shia LaBouf (or however you spell it). I remember seeing him in some kids sitcom a few years back, and he was good there (kind-of the same character he played in 'Transformers').

 

[cooleddie74]

I hear Sean Connery and John Rhys-Davies aren't in the new INDY movie. If so, that sucks.

 

[Aragorn]

Sharr Khan said:
Obviously if you find it boring I'd expect you not to like it the same applies to me. I do give you points for not harping on Abrams and actually giving it a chance - unlike a number of other people around this place... a few of which come across like Abrams ran over their cat or something.

But didn't you hear? Abrams is a "jerk"! I don't remember which inbred self-important, self-entitled poster said that, but OBVIOUSLY Abrams is a jerk because he sucks. And Star Trek will be bad because it's bad.

 

[number6]

Abrams was great until people found out he was going to do a Star Trek film

 

[Jack Bauer]

Aragorn said:

Sharr Khan said:
Obviously if you find it boring I'd expect you not to like it the same applies to me. I do give you points for not harping on Abrams and actually giving it a chance - unlike a number of other people around this place... a few of which come across like Abrams ran over their cat or something.

But didn't you hear? Abrams is a "jerk"! I don't remember which inbred self-important, self-entitled poster said that, but OBVIOUSLY Abrams is a jerk because he sucks. And Star Trek will be bad because it's bad.

I think that was MattJC. He said he'd avoid the new Indiana Jones movie if it included a Star Trek trailer. I told him it most likely would so he's probably going to wait for the DVD of Indiana Jones. He seems to think that Abrams redoing TOS makes Abrams a jerk.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I think that was MattJC. He said he'd avoid the new Indiana Jones movie if it included a Star Trek trailer. I told him it most likely would so he's probably going to wait for the DVD of Indiana Jones. He seems to think that Abrams redoing TOS makes Abrams a jerk.

Its not just MattJC(and avoiding a movie because it has a trailer for a film you have no intents of seeing is, in truth - silly I could and should call it worse things...)

There are posters here who take on a snide-know-it-all attitude simply cause its Abrams doing this project. One in particular has even implied he'd rather Braga helm the thing then Abrams, when he's being generous and not worshiping Roddenberry's ghost. That causes me to go "huh?" and wonder what actually is driving this Abrams hate.

Sharr

 

[number6]

^I am sure it involves a playground, a sled, and a bottle of YooHoo.