Export thread

Another fargin' Transformers movie?

#1

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Unfortunately, yes.

Fuck Michael Bay. Fuck Shia LeIDon'tFeelLikeLookingUpTheCorrectSpelling. Fuck this movie. Fuck anyone looking forward to this, and double fuck anyone who would dare stoop so low as to like it.

IT'S THE END OF CINEMA AS WE KNOW IT!! AGAIN!! :aaah:

Now that's all out of the way we can move forward without the 20 pages of napalm we had last summer. ;)

*Please take this post in the vein it was intended. Also, it's going on 1am, I'm at work for another 8 hours, and all chores are done. :p


#2

Jay

Jay

Saw the trailer during previews tonight. I'm pretty damn excited to watch this movie. Heard it'll be in 3D.... I can't wait to watch it opening night in 3D and DBOX seats.

Seriously, I'm counting the days. I can't wait.

Shame about Megan Fox though, I think every movie needs to have a side romance to keep things in perspective.


#3

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Ahem.

https://www.halforums.com/threads/another-fargin-transformers-movie.25607/


#4

Jay

Jay

Neutrons and Protons.


#5

R

Raemon777

I'm looking forward to it. I would have liked Transformers 2 if it was 30 minutes shorter (the 20 minutes of racist and sexual jokes that made no sense coming from robots, and 10 minutes of needlessly drawn out final battle). Wrapped inside those 30 minutes of suck was a decent 2 hour flick, with some awesome shots of Optimus Prime.


#6

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I will probably sneak into this in 2D after I see a better movie since I hate myself and watching this is easier than hitting myself with a whip


#7

Terrik

Terrik

The preview for it ran before Kung Fu Panda 2 at the Imax. My girlfriend looked at me and said "I'VE GOT TO SEE THAT".

Naturally, she didn't see the first two. I kinda liked the first one and fell asleep during the desert battle in the second one. Debating wether or not to force her to watch the other movies before seeing this one


#8

@Li3n

@Li3n

Raemon777 said:
the 20 minutes of racist and sexual jokes that made no sense coming from robots,
Click to expand...
Hey now, they did mention they got a lot of info from the internet...


#9

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

I almost forgot. Fuck 3D too. Yet another action movie that got hosed down after the fact with 3D juice because the suits got dollar signs in their eyes. :rolleyes:


#10

Frank

Frankie Williamson

At least this movie looks like it has threatening villains. Considering how completely worthless the bad guys were in the first 2 movies.

Also, it will be one of the worst movies ever made, but it won't be THE WORST POUND FOR POUND MOVIE EVER MADE like Transformers 2 was.

Also, I won't see it.


#11

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Jay, I will spend the 46 dollars I don't spend seeing it in 3D in DBox on a fancy dinner with someone pretty, thus making my night a billion times as fulfilling.


#12

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

re: the racist robots, Michael Bay has promised if you can find one frame of them in Transformers 3, he will give you $25k or something like that


#13

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I'm gonna go clean up rat shit that Friday and have a better time than going to this movie.


#14

DarkAudit

DarkAudit



#15

Jay

Jay

You dog.


#16

Steve

Steve

Saw Shia in an interview and he said it's the best of the three movies. He apologized for the second one and acknowledged it was sub par. Thanks you Shia for being honest and I will be in the theater for the third one. Plus, I don't get all the Shia hate. Did you all not grow up with him on Even Stevens? He made that show.


#17

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

?


#18



Philosopher B.

Sweet, if they try hard enough, maybe number 3 will be merely mediocre!


#19

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Steve said:
Saw Shia in an interview and he said it's the best of the three movies. He apologized for the second one and acknowledged it was sub par. Thanks you Shia for being honest and I will be in the theater for the third one. Plus, I don't get all the Shia hate. Did you all not grow up with him on Even Stevens? He made that show.
Click to expand...


#20

Steve

Steve

Frankie Williamson said:
Click to expand...
Any other actor could not have delivered a line with such gusto. One word, two letters, spoken like a true Thespian.


#21

Espy

Espy

I love that people keep paying shit tons of cash for all the dumb gimmicks being thrown at us movie-goers. You know what I'll pay extra for? Not dim washed out 3d crap, not gimmicky seats or fake IMAX screens. I pay extra for no kids allowed seating, loveseats, a bottle of wine and food for me and my wife. Now that's good movie-going.


#22

Jay

Jay

Lots of people on the rag it seems.

It's alright people. I'll still go out and watch these movies. I'll pay for the shitty 3D and sit in my reserved DBOX seat 3 minutes before the movie starts without having to wait in any shape or form. I'll have no one 5 feet behind me kicking my chair, in the perfect row, in the exact middle, eating candy at my heart's content.

I'll have fun. I'll go HELLS YEAH. And most of all, I'll do it ALL AGAIN... why?

Because bitch threads like these are fuckin delicious.


#23



Philosopher B.

Jay said:
Lots of people on the rag it seems.
Click to expand...
:-/

Espy said:
I pay extra for no kids allowed seating, loveseats, a bottle of wine and food for me and my wife. Now that's good movie-going.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you could have robot balls swinging right out at your face. Your FACE.


#24

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Why do you pay for the shitty 3D, Jay? Do the glasses and popping effect do anything for you? I can't stand that distracting shit, and I hate how the brightness it cut by 50% using the 3D digital projectors. 3D technology's been around for 50+ years, you'd think they'd figure out how to maintain the picture quality.


#25

strawman

strawman

3D, done well, is more immersive. This franchise will probably use it in an over-the-top manner similar to the way thye use explosions in an over-the-top manner, but I've been pleasantly surprised with the careful use of 3D in recent movies.

If you saw Avatar in 3D, you might have a good grasp of how 3D enhances the experience without becoming gimmicky. Even UP in 3D was exhilarating to watch the vast expanses and the placement of the characters on them.

In fact, movies have spent so much time making sure characters pop out of the background over the last century, I suspect that we'll see more interesting use of 3D to convey that same sense of depth that 2D movies are having to trick us into seeing. This may not be as big a change as black and white to color, but it's having a similar effect on how the movies are made.

Eventually everything will be shot in 3D, though you'll still be able to watch it in 2D if you prefer. However, directors will have to choose whether they will still cater for 2D presentations. In the same way a sound engineer would choose totally different mixes for a stereo setup vs a surround sound setup, directors will be making choices knowing that people will be able to see the relative positioning of movie elements.

But, you know, you've got quite some time before you won't be able to watch a movie in 2D, so if that's your preference, go for it. If you really prefer movies in 3D once they stop showing them in 2D, craft your own set of 3D glasses that only show one side - it's pretty easy to do. I've built some Real3D polarizing lenses into a junked pair of sunglasses, and it's significantly more comfortable than the hard plastic one-size-fits-all junk they hand you at the theater.

Everyone who enjoys 3D say eye eye!

:csi:


#26

Espy

Espy

escushion said:
Why do you pay for the shitty 3D, Jay? Do the glasses and popping effect do anything for you? I can't stand that distracting shit, and I hate how the brightness it cut by 50% using the 3D digital projectors. 3D technology's been around for 50+ years, you'd think they'd figure out how to maintain the picture quality.
Click to expand...
Dude, quit being "on the rag" or as some of us call it, "having a different opinion/experience".
Added at: 16:49
The only 3D I've found to be worth paying extra money on Adam is, so far, Avatar. Every other "3D" movie I've wasted money on has been post conversion and has looked like total crap. Why waste money on a dimmer picture and sub par 3D when you could enjoy the movie and save 10 bucks? I'd rather save my cash for movies that do 3D correctly.


#27

strawman

strawman

The post-conversion movies suck at 3D. If that's what escushion has seen and is complaining about, then I'll be right there with him picketing against those abominations.

Avatar was good. The 3D animated films have been pretty decent (and those are mostly true 3D). We're going to see a lot more real 3D over time.


#28

Espy

Espy

Yup. I mean, hey, enjoy what you want, but post conversion 3D is the same dumb gimmick that separates you from your cash just like the fake "imax" screens everyone is charging more for these days.
I would have liked to see Thor in the theater but I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste money on post conversion 3D and no one around here is playing anything but. Guess I'll wait for Blu-Ray.


#29

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I saw Werner Herzog's latest documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" in 3D, and it was amazing. I couldn't imagine seeing it any other way.

Also, it's classless and shitty to use "on the rag" as a synonym for something negative or being a "complainer", but I'm sure everyone knows that :)


#30

Espy

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I saw Werner Herzog's latest documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" in 3D, and it was amazing. I couldn't imagine seeing it any other way.
Click to expand...
I've heard it's AMAZING. He was on Science Friday discussing shooting in in 3D and unfortunately, while "Thor" is in crap 3D on like 8 screens, Cave is NOT being shown in real 3D anywhere in the metro area. How dumb is that?


#31

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Espy said:
I've heard it's AMAZING. He was on Science Friday discussing shooting in in 3D and unfortunately, while "Thor" is in crap 3D on like 8 screens, Cave is NOT being shown in real 3D anywhere in the metro area. How dumb is that?
Click to expand...
I was really surprised that it showed up in a random theater in Houston. A huge 30 screen theater just kind of randomly had it there instead of any other of the huge money making 3D movies on one of their screens. Odd, but I wasn't about to complain.


#32



Jiarn

Steve said:
Plus, I don't get all the Shia hate. Did you all not grow up with him on Even Stevens? He made that show.
Click to expand...
Even Stevens was boring, trite, and a rip-off of many young teen sitcoms that came before it. It did nothing original, it did not stand out on it's own merits in any way. Shia hate, comes from the fact that he's a talentless actor with no ground to stand on, but somehow, someway gets cast in major roles that he has done nothing to deserve, all the while ruining a large part of the film with his presence. He's the Jar Jar Binks of every movie he's in.

That clear enough?


#33

R

Raemon777

I honestly don't think Shia is bad at all. I don't think he's amazing, but I don't think he's done anything to ruin the movies he's in, that weren't already ruined simply due to the way his part was written.


#34

Steve

Steve

Jiarn said:
Shia hate, comes from the fact that he's a talentless actor with no ground to stand on, but somehow, someway gets cast in major roles that he has done nothing to deserve, all the while ruining a large part of the film with his presence. He's the Jar Jar Binks of every movie he's in.
Click to expand...
Shia is the Wil Wheaton of this generation. He'll be loved and revered next decade.

And regarding the 3D debate I'm all for 3D if it adds to the movie and not just a gimmick. Avatar is a great example of 3D enhancing the experience. Clash of the Titans is a good example of it being nothing more than a distraction.


#35



Jiarn

No. No he won't. He's going to disappear and end up a washed up nothing. I will be quite happy when it happens.


#36

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Within the next week I'm gonna watch Avatar and I'll bet the only difference I see besides no Navi tails poking out of the picture is that it's on a smaller screen. 3D is only being considered the next step in movie-making because we're in its fad-phase right now. It was a fad in the 60s and 80s as well. I think saying "all movies will be 3D" is ridiculously short-sighted and being swept up in the momentum of the gimmick. Not to mention how silly that sounds--I'm sure the dramatic Oscar bait isn't going to be in 3D.

But as for its merits, I don't think tossing golf balls or spears at the audience is immersion, and when it does become perfected, it'll be visual immersion that jars and sacrifices story immersion. It's not just conversion films (which are certainly worse than any other 3D venture).

And then again for argument's sake, let's say it becomes the way of the future. The difference we'll see in watching a movie in 2D will be what we see now, such as in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, where a skeleton hand waves at the camera, and would've popped in 3D. I thought "I guess that comes out of the screen in 3D." I guess if I'd gone to see it in 3D, that waving hand sticking out would've improved the experience?


#37



Jiarn

Yeah, it's not remotely like that actually. The 3D in alot of films doesn't cause things to "pop out of the screen" in my experience. Instead, it gives movies a MUCH deeper "depth" that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

The flying scenes in Avatar REALLY showed that "depth" off as well as Alice in Wonderland and UP. However, I would only enjoy that experience in the theatre and only for VERY select films.


#38

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Yeah, how does that "3D is the future" fly when it comes to home video? Are we all gonna have 3D TVs in the future? (Addressed to steinman, not Jiarn, as people seem to be mistaking who I'm talking to lately, even when I quote.)

Depth I got with the Coraline show, but I didn't feel it really improved the movie and I loved that film. I saw Avatar in theaters twice, not for the 3D effect, but because the visuals were interesting and the story was engaged me, regardless of what Charlie said.

I was watching some film study thing, and it's amazing to me how the original 1933 King Kong achieved depth of the jungles through layering of background, mattes, and foregrounds too that made the jungle feel like it went on and on. This was during the first few years of sound's existence in film, let alone before 3D had emerged. Yet they achieved that and so much more with their limited time of experience and much less technology.


#39

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

escushion said:
Yeah, how does that "3D is the future" fly when it comes to home video? Are we all gonna have 3D TVs in the future? (Addressed to steinman, not Jiarn, as people seem to be mistaking who I'm talking to lately, even when I quote.)

Depth I got with the Coraline show, but I didn't feel it really improved the movie and I loved that film. I saw Avatar in theaters twice, not for the 3D effect, but because the visuals were interesting and the story was engaged me, regardless of what Charlie said.

I was watching some film study thing, and it's amazing to me how the original 1933 King Kong achieved depth of the jungles through layering of background, mattes, and foregrounds too that made the jungle feel like it went on and on. This was during the first few years of sound's existence in film, let alone before 3D had emerged. Yet they achieved that and so much more with their limited time of experience and much less technology.
Click to expand...
That the makers of King Kong were able to do so much with so little is an achievement, certainly. But that doesn't automatically mean that having more would lead to less. On the contrary, you can have better technology -and- good talent, albeit the latter is often harder to come by.


#40

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Let's be honest... 3D isn't about enhancing the movie, it's about making it that much harder for people to pirate movies. I'm pretty sure video cameras can't capture the image properly, which makes them look awful. Also, most people don't have the foresight to save a pair of 3D glasses.


#41

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

More than one tech writer believes the current 3D wave is a scam. What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?

I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.


#42

figmentPez

figmentPez

DarkAudit said:
What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it'll be enough for 3D to stick around, but differences:
- Higher quality glasses (you can't honestly compare red/blue glasses from the 50's to modern polarized glasses. Even compared to 80's tech, glasses are now circularly polarized instead of linearly)
- Home versions that can closely match the theater quality
- Video games are also in 3D

And if it doesn't work now, the future still holds:
- 48fps+ video might solve the strobing issues with fast motion in 3D
- Glasses free tech continues to advance.
- Holographic tech and who knows what else.

3D is going to happen, eventually. It may take holodeck level tech hundreds of years in the future to make it stick around as more than a fad, but enough people want 3D that it keeps coming back, and it will keep doing so until a good enough version is found to hold long-term interest.


#43

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

DarkAudit said:
I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that not every 3D release also gets a standard release as well. I know the latest Chronicles of Narnia movie was guilty of this.


#44

strawman

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Let's be honest... 3D isn't about enhancing the movie, it's about making it that much harder for people to pirate movies.
Click to expand...
I willingly pay more for a 3D movie because it does enhance the experience for me - when it's real 3D, as opposed to post-production 3D.

Current pirating techniques have no problem grabbing the 3D image, but there's not a big market for it so they mostly focus on 2D.

The movie studios and the theaters are implementing 3D because with big screen TVs and projectors common in most homes, people are less interested in going to the theater. They get nearly the same experience in terms of visual and sound, but a much better experience in terms of lower noise, non-sticky floors, eating and drinking what they want, comfortable chairs, etc.

It's a way to make more money, and to stop the loss of customers due to good home theater setups.

DarkAudit said:
More than one tech writer believes the current 3D wave is a scam. What's the difference between now and the 50's wave or the 80s wave besides bigger budget movies getting the 3D juice hosedown in post-production?

I reject the "just watch it in 2D, then" argument. If they're going to keep pushing the fake 3D, they're going to have to do it on someone else's nickel. They won't get it from me in any D.
Click to expand...
First, 3D performed in post production is not as enjoyable as real 3D. A lot of movies are being shot with two cameras, and the 3D is very, very good. If you've only seen movies with post-production 3D, then I can understand your unhappiness.

The difference between the earlier waves of 3D is that the technology is better. Significantly better. It's still nowhere near perfect, but it's much better. Further, the bigger difference is that this time the movie studios and theaters have a reason to stick it out - in the competition between the theater and living room, they are losing out. This wasn't true two and six decades ago.

I don't understand why people are so focused on fake 3D (I assume you mean post production 3D).

And, as a consumer, you are perfectly within your rights to avoid watching movies you think are wasting D's. :awesome:

AshburnerX said:
Not to mention that not every 3D release also gets a standard release as well. I know the latest Chronicles of Narnia movie was guilty of this.
Click to expand...
It had a standard 2D and 3D release here. We've got four theaters with over 10 screens each within 10 miles of my home, though. Perhaps your local theaters have to choose what they are showing more carefully, and choose the 3D version when they can only show one or the other?

So far I have not found a movie that was showing in 3D that I couldn't choose 2D if I wanted.

Every 3D movie is also released in 2D.

Not every theater is showing both versions.


#45

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Also, Pirates had a surprisingly low % of 3D to 2D viewers, so maybe theaters will be taking the hint and not showing as many 3D showtimes.


#46

strawman

strawman

I suspect people are realizing that 3D isn't worth the extra cost for them.

For some people it will be, but eventually theaters are going to have to cut their prices for 3D showings.


#47

drifter

drifter

Regarding dimness, some of you may find this article of interest.


#48

Espy

Espy

stienman said:
I don't understand why people are so focused on fake 3D (I assume you mean post production 3D).
Click to expand...
Because most films that are "3D" are done in post right now?

Now, lets talk about REAL 3D: I've seen 4 movies done in 3D that weren't done poorly. Avatar, Toy Story 3 Tron: Legacy and RE4. Of the 4 of them only 1 of them needed to be in 3D. TS3, Tron and RE4's 3D brought nothing to the table. Maybe a little extra depth, maybe, but in the end, unlike Avatar, the 3D felt pointless. In no way did it enhance the story, and really, any effect, be it in the movie or on the screen is there to enhance the story. If it's just there to be an effect it's pointless, gimmicky and a waste of money.

stienman said:
So far I have not found a movie that was showing in 3D that I couldn't choose 2D if I wanted.

Every 3D movie is also released in 2D.

Not every theater is showing both versions
Click to expand...
I'm sure if I wanted I could find Thor in 2d somewhere, but my theater of choice is only showing it in 3D. So it's either suck it up and pay an extra 10 bucks for a dimly lit screen with crappy fake 3D or wait till it's out on DVD. Which I'm fine with, it's not a huge deal, but thats money they won't get from me.


#49

@Li3n

@Li3n

Why do ppl keep saying the 3D added to Avatar?


#50

Tress

Tress

@Li3n said:
Why do ppl keep saying the 3D added to Avatar?
Click to expand...
Because most of us think it did, you git. Even you understand the concept of an opinion, right?


#51

@Li3n

@Li3n

I swear, if you're gonna say it's an opinion, it can't be wrong i'll go Power Loader on your xenomorph ass...

Really, it was pretty much amongst the most well done 3D i saw, but i don't see how it added much to the film itself, and no one seems to even try to explain why they felt it did...


#52



Jiarn

You should read my post on 3D just a few up. I explained quite clearly what 3D brings to certain films.


#53

@Li3n

@Li3n

Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...

So i guess you guys where saying it adds something to the visuals, which is odd to me since bringing something to the visuals (another dimension) is what the tech does.


#54

strawman

strawman

@Li3n said:
I swear, if you're gonna say it's an opinion, it can't be wrong i'll go Power Loader on your xenomorph ass...

Really, it was pretty much amongst the most well done 3D i saw, but i don't see how it added much to the film itself, and no one seems to even try to explain why they felt it did...
Click to expand...
You say, "Added much" so you apparently agree that it added something, however small.

The question is, was that something enough to justify the extra cost.

I think at this point in the discussion it's not worth arguing. It added something, we can all agree on, but whether that something was "big" enough to justify the cost really depends on the individual.

Therefore: you are now required to go power loader. I demand still images of your exploits, else I will have a hard time believing that they occurred.
Added at: 13:53
@Li3n said:
Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...

So i guess you guys where saying it adds something to the visuals, which is odd to me since bringing something to the visuals (another dimension) is what the tech does.
Click to expand...
I must be completely missing your point. Are you saying that films should, in no cirsumstances, adapt any technology that, if removed, renders the story useless? In other words 3D should not be used except when the storyline changes significantly without it?

Might as well get rid of color. Sound. Images. Heck, you really should just go back to the library. That's where the story itself really lives, right?


#55

@Li3n

@Li3n

What, you haven't see the documentary where that crazy woman went ballistic on me because of that small child... it's even on youtube:



After that those pesky Predators took out my brain and sent it to another dimension where mutated turtles and idiot ninja clan leaders are way too common.

PS See post above for what "Added much" was about.


#56

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Until 3D is done in a way that doesn't cause me physical discomfort, I want no part of it. There is a good amount of people that can't watch these messes without getting splitting headaches. So, if this future progress of the future advancement is the future accept it progress as some of you have said is the way it's going to be, they're going to alienate a not insignificant percentage of the movie going public.

That article about Pirates 4 is pretty telling.


#57

Tress

Tress

@Li3n said:
*a bunch of stuff*
Click to expand...
:facepalm:

Why do I bother?


#58

strawman

strawman

Frankie Williamson said:
Until 3D is done in a way that doesn't cause me physical discomfort, I want no part of it. There is a good amount of people that can't watch these messes without getting splitting headaches.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is still a big problem. They are hoping that the new 48fps speed will help with movies shot in real 3D, but unfortunately there will always be people that simply can't watch them.


#59

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Espy said:
I'm sure if I wanted I could find Thor in 2d somewhere, but my theater of choice is only showing it in 3D. So it's either suck it up and pay an extra 10 bucks for a dimly lit screen with crappy fake 3D or wait till it's out on DVD. Which I'm fine with, it's not a huge deal, but thats money they won't get from me.
Click to expand...
Do not see Thor in 3D. It it very much a flatly-shot movie; normally I'd criticize that, but it works for that movie because of how the shots are done. The scenes are organized in most places to look like they'd belong in a comic panel. You made the right choice.


#60

strawman

strawman

All the reports I'm hearing seem to indicate that Thor is better in 2D than 3D, even for people who like 3D. Misapplication of technology and all that...


#61

Espy

Espy

escushion said:
Do not see Thor in 3D. It it very much a flatly-shot movie; normally I'd criticize that, but it works for that movie because of how the shots are done. The scenes are organized in most places to look like they'd belong in a comic panel. You made the right choice.
Click to expand...
Thats what I'm thinking.

I'm a GIANT green lantern nerd though, and I'm SURE that they are only going to show it in 3D around here so I'm trying to decide what to do about that :(


#62

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

drifter said:
Regarding dimness, some of you may find this article of interest.
Click to expand...
Is there anything Sony isn't fucking up lately?


#63

figmentPez

figmentPez

@Li3n said:
Sorry, but "depth" as in the 3rd dimension doesn't bring any more to a film then pretty graphics bring to gameplay...
Click to expand...
Pretty graphics do add to gameplay or, rather, they can. If, for instance, Left 4 Dead were attempted with the Half-Life engine for graphics, the game wouldn't have worked. The lighting effects, character outlines, color correction highlighting items, and all that's just strictly functional mechanics. Add in atmosphere, characterization and other bits of subtle storytelling and you end up with a vastly different game, both from a gameplay perspective and from an artistic viewpoint.

3D in a movie is a completely different ball of wax than graphics in a video game.
Added at: 19:50
stienman said:
Yep, this is still a big problem. They are hoping that the new 48fps speed will help with movies shot in real 3D, but unfortunately there will always be people that simply can't watch them.
Click to expand...
The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps. I'm wondering how many theaters are actually capable of displaying that fps.

I'm also wondering if there are already rants from film snobs about the higher framerate looking "too smooth" and "like cheap video".


#64

@Li3n

@Li3n

figmentPez said:
Pretty graphics do add to gameplay or, rather, they can. If, for instance, Left 4 Dead were attempted with the Half-Life engine for graphics, the game wouldn't have worked. The lighting effects, character outlines, color correction highlighting items, and all that's just strictly functional mechanics. Add in atmosphere, characterization and other bits of subtle storytelling and you end up with a vastly different game, both from a gameplay perspective and from an artistic viewpoint.
Click to expand...
How would character outlines not have worked with crappier graphics?! Engine limitation? That isn't about graphics alone.

But yeah, a film is already 50% visual experience, while gameplay isn't, so it's not such a good comparison, but enough to get a point across (looks a bit prettier, but won't make much of a difference if the base game/film isn't already good).

stienman said:
I must be completely missing your point. Are you saying that films should, in no cirsumstances, adapt any technology that, if removed, renders the story useless? In other words 3D should not be used except when the storyline changes significantly without it?

Might as well get rid of color. Sound. Images. Heck, you really should just go back to the library. That's where the story itself really lives, right?
Click to expand...
Missed this last time...

No, i'm actually not arguing that there should be no 3D, just that i don't see what it adds beyond the illusion of depth... kinda like pretty graphics only add pretty graphics to a game... (beyond the switch from 2D to 3D and other stuff that's more then just more pixels).

So when i hear people say it adds something to Avatar instead of "It's used well in Avatar" it makes me go "Huh?!"
Added at: 12:16
Tress said:
:facepalm:

Why do I bother?
Click to expand...
Because deep down you like it... you slutty silicon based life form...


#65

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I'll see the movie, and come back here and complain that a movie about talking robots centers around a twerpy kid.


#66



Philosopher B.

You're what's wrong with America!


#67

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Philosopher B. said:
You're what's wrong with America!
Click to expand...
I used to be what is wrong with America, but I stopped teaching.


#68

figmentPez

figmentPez

@Li3n said:
How would character outlines not have worked with crappier graphics?! Engine limitation? That isn't about graphics alone.
Click to expand...
The glowing highlights around teammates that are out of direct view is done with pixel shaders. (i.e. pretty graphics tech that wasn't even present in video cards when Half-Life came out). There's something similar going on in Team Fortress 2. The character models there are given rim-lighting with pixel shaders in order to make their silhouettes pop from the background more, making them easier to quickly identify. That simply would not be possible with crappier graphics. The game would not play the same if it were more difficult to identify various classes quickly. (oh, the rim-lighting is used in L4D as well, to make smokers stand out on rooftops).

While there are games out there that just throw shiny graphics against the wall to see what creates good bullshot, there are also games out there that use advanced graphics processing to relay game information to the player more effectively. That's where the difference is. A film that makes good use of 3D may have a greater impact in certain scenes because of the enhanced sense of depth, but what it shows to the audience that they can't see without it is very limited. Gaming graphics, on the other hand, are used to convey information to the player on numerous levels. If you wanted to compare fancy graphics in video games to movie technology, you'd have to lump 3D, color correction/grading, blue/green screen, matte paintings, makeup, lighting, set creation, wardrobe, pyrotechnics and more.


#69

strawman

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
I used to be what is wrong with America, but I stopped teaching.
Click to expand...
:csi:


#70



Disconnected

Espy said:
I love that people keep paying shit tons of cash for all the dumb gimmicks being thrown at us movie-goers. You know what I'll pay extra for? Not dim washed out 3d crap, not gimmicky seats or fake IMAX screens. I pay extra for no kids allowed seating, loveseats, a bottle of wine and food for me and my wife. Now that's good movie-going.
Click to expand...
FUCKING AMEN TO THAT!


#71

Azurephoenix

Azurephoenix

Are real IMAX screens still acceptable?


#72

Espy

Espy

Oh man, I loves me some REAL Imax.


#73

R

Raemon777

On the "computer graphics" metaphor... first of all, people shell out lots of money for games with awesome graphics. So I don't understand what the point being made was. Second: people have a perfectly good reason to shell out money for games with awesome graphics:

Awesome graphics look awesome. Awesomeness is something that's just plain important, all by itself, to the point that people will pay money for it. People paid money for good art long before it got interesting gameplay attached to it.

Things can be awesome in isolation and then suck when you combine them with other things. Things can be awesome enough to pay for, but not enough to justify a particular price. But given a game with good gameplay with bad graphics, and a game with good gameplay and great graphics, I will happily pay more for the latter, because I just enjoy it more.

That said, the metaphor doesn't prove anything anyway. IMO, 3D in movies usually adds very little. I personally will ONLY pay money for 3D if it's exaggerated and makes the movie fun and exciting. I hate this new trend of "subtle depth" that people are using 3D for. I do think movies are slightly better with it, but something like 5% better tops (or 50 cents for a $10 movie). I'll pay an extra $3 for exaggerated fun "gimmick" 3D as long as it's used during action scenes where it doesn't distract from the plot.

The only movie that's come out recently that I cared about the 3D for was How to Train your Dragon. It's not only used for awesome flight scenes, (something even Avatar didn't impress me with), but it actually reinforces character development. (The scene where Hiccup meets Toothless the first time is much better in 3D).


#74

Tress

Tress

Raemon777 said:
On the "computer graphics" metaphor... first of all, people shell out lots of money for games with awesome graphics. So I don't understand what the point being made was. Second: people have a perfectly good reason to shell out money for games with awesome graphics:

Awesome graphics look awesome. Awesomeness is something that's just plain important, all by itself, to the point that people will pay money for it. People paid money for good art long before it got interesting gameplay attached to it.

Things can be awesome in isolation and then suck when you combine them with other things. Things can be awesome enough to pay for, but not enough to justify a particular price. But given a game with good gameplay with bad graphics, and a game with good gameplay and great graphics, I will happily pay more for the latter, because I just enjoy it more.

[...]

The only movie that's come out recently that I cared about the 3D for was How to Train your Dragon. It's not only used for awesome flight scenes, (something even Avatar didn't impress me with), but it actually reinforces character development. (The scene where Hiccup meets Toothless the first time is much better in 3D).
Click to expand...


#75

bhamv3

bhamv3

I will watch Transformers 3, and I will enjoy it for the same reasons I enjoyed the first two.

I don't want to watch it in 3D though.


#76

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

As a glasses-wearer, until 3D is glasses-less, it can kiss my ass.


#77

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

SpecialKO said:
As a glasses-wearer, until 3D is glasses-less, it can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...
Those 3D glasses are oversized. You can easily wear them over your glasses.


#78

strawman

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Those 3D glasses are oversized. You can easily wear them over your glasses.
Click to expand...
Easily and comfortably are miles apart, in this case.


#79

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Easily and comfortably are miles apart, in this case.
Click to expand...
Bingo.


#80

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

True enough. Have you ever considered just taking a pair of 3D glasses, cutting off the legs, and adding a clip to the center? Then you can clip it to the bridge of your glasses.


#81

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Maybe get a second pair of glasses and chisel holes into the frame, and then screw 3D glasses to them permanently, so until you need new lenses, you're all set for your 3D adventures.


#82

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I have, actually, considered it, but then decided that since most 3D movies never should have been 3D in the first place, it's better on my eyes (and my wallet) to stick with 2D.

I have far more issue with the "only releasing it in 3D in most theaters, so good luck finding 2D!" thing that they're doing now. I don't go to my favorite (and most convenient) theater now because of it.


#83

Espy

Espy

SpecialKO said:
I have far more issue with the "only releasing it in 3D in most theaters, so good luck finding 2D!" thing that they're doing now. I don't go to my favorite (and most convenient) theater now because of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's really pissing me off. If I want to see GL at my favorite theater its going to have to be in 3D. Which really blows.

I should edit to say, again, I'm not against it being in 3D, but I believe its a post conversion again and I want my GL at full brightness dammit.


#84

Jay

Jay

Haha 4 eyes are on the losing end again.

Na Na Na Naaaaa Na


#85

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Jay said:
Haha 4 eyes are on the losing end again.

Na Na Na Naaaaa Na
Click to expand...
Hi, 1980s. Will you be wearing leg-warmers and shoulder pads while moonwalking to the theater?


#86

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

escushion said:
Hi, 1980s. Will you be wearing leg-warmers and shoulder pads while moonwalking to the theater?
Click to expand...


#87

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
Those 3D glasses are oversized. You can easily wear them over your glasses.
Click to expand...
You've not seen my noggin'.


#88

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

So I finally get to see a clip instead of a trailer thanks to the Late Show...

FUCK THIS MOVIE.

It took only 10 seconds for me to despise everyone involved in the scene. If that's the best humanity has to offer, the Transformers can have the fucking planet. At least it'll spare us Transformers 4.


#89

Tress

Tress

What.a.shock.

Transformers 2 was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Wild horses couldn't drag me to see the third one.


#90

Cajungal

Cajungal

But the Rifftrax is gonna be soooooo good. :D


#91

Jay

Jay

DarkAudit said:
So I finally get to see a clip instead of a trailer thanks to the Late Show...

FUCK THIS MOVIE.

It took only 10 seconds for me to despise everyone involved in the scene. If that's the best humanity has to offer, the Transformers can have the fucking planet. At least it'll spare us Transformers 4.
Click to expand...
I can't wait to be there opening night. In 3D on a DBOX seat eating "New" Skittles along with a side dish of your tears.


#92

Tress

Tress

Amorous Eyes said:
I loved TF2 and was one of the most fun visual experiences to watch. Looking forward to TF3. :)
Click to expand...
That's fine. Enjoy it as much as you like. Just don't make me come with you. :p


#93

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Jay said:
I can't wait to be there opening night. In 3D on a DBOX seat eating "New" Skittles along with a side dish of your tears.
Click to expand...
You do that. I'll be enjoying my free outfield grandstand baseball tickets with a Primanti Bros sammich and a soda. And have cash left over for afters. :p


#94



Jiarn

Amorous Eyes said:
I loved TF2 and was one of the most fun visual experiences to watch. Looking forward to TF3. :)
Click to expand...
People can love terrible movies, I should know, I love Uwe Boll films. Yet I still think the entire Transformers series is an atrocity of filmmaking and a really sad look at our nation's movie viewing preferences. Just a few more steps till


#95

Jay

Jay

DarkAudit said:
You do that. I'll be enjoying my free outfield grandstand baseball tickets with a Primanti Bros sammich and a soda. And have cash left over for afters. :p
Click to expand...

Added at: 18:12
Jiarn said:
People can love terrible movies, I should know, I love Uwe Boll films. Yet I still think the entire Transformers series is an atrocity of filmmaking and a really sad look at our nation's movie viewing preferences.
Click to expand...


I WATCHED IT AND SHE NEVER WORE THE OUTFIT


#96

Frank

Frankie Williamson

I am bogged down with the flu otherwise I would be enjoying an amazing meal with someone pretty who I would then likely sleep with afterwards, all for less than the cost of the 3D Dbox nonsense with all the fixins.


#97

Steve

Steve

This 3D experience will be like no other. Michael Bay personally had his assistant make several copies of a letter one of his staff wrote personally to the projectionists telling them how to show the movie.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...tionis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
See, Michael Bay cares about each and every one of you.


#98

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I may not agree with Michael Bay on many things about movies, but he's absolutely fucking right on this.


#99

Espy

Espy

Ebert's facebook review:
Gone from my life: 154 minutes.
Click to expand...
You can imagine how his real review of it went. My favorite gems were:

Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is a visually ugly film with an incoherent plot, wooden characters and inane dialog. It provided me with one of the more unpleasant experiences I've had at the movies.
Click to expand...
and

There is more of a plot this time. It is a plot that cannot be described in terms of structure, more in terms of duration. When it stops, it's over.
Click to expand...
I gotta say though, other people who were less kind to the other films seem to like this one more so I might, if I get drunk enough go see it. But you know what they say, "fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.".

No matter what though this movie is going to make a bajillion dollars.


#100

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

And he closes with...
One special effect happens, and the another special effect happens, and we are expected to be grateful that we have seen two special effects.
Click to expand...


#101

Jay

Jay

Just reserved my tickets for tomorrow night. Ultra AVX theatre... reserved seats... FUCK YES

I can't wait to watch this plotless tear enducing movie.


#102

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Would you see it if Alan Tudyk was in the film???


#103

Jay

Jay

He is?

SWEEEET


#104

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Sulk. You win this round, Jay. Baseball tix aren't until next week.


#105

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm going to see this in IMAX 3D, because I want to believe 3D can be cool, and this is "the best use since Avatar". Also, the grudgingly middling reviews give me some hope that this will be Good-Michael-Bay. Plus, I just visited Chicago and want to see it torn to shreds in a 40 minute action sequence.


#106

Jay

Jay

I hope we get to see more decepticon balls.


#107

Tress

Tress

Jay said:
I hope we get to see more decepticon balls.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping for more Robo-ebonics, myself.


#108

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Not just Robo-Ebonics, but Robo-Ebonics voiced by white comedians...


#109

filmfanatic

filmfanatic

I've seen it and I quite enjoyed it.


#110

Espy

Espy

filmfanatic said:
I've seen it and I quite enjoyed it.
Click to expand...
Here's the question though: Did you enjoy parts 1 and 2 as well?


#111

filmfanatic

filmfanatic

Espy said:
Here's the question though: Did you enjoy parts 1 and 2 as well?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the first film. The second film was terrible.


#112

Shannow

Shannow

Well, it was better than the last one. I will give it that. And actually, the 3d was quite good throughout, which was surprising.


#113

Jay

Jay

Tonight will be awesome.


#114

Null

Null

A friend of mine went to see it last night, apparently she and her friends enjoyed it quite a bit. I will probably see it next weekend.


#115

Jay

Jay

Easily the best of the 3 movies.

Good popcorn movie and surprising a REALLY GOOD score. Gonna have to check out the OST.


#116

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Jay said:
Easily the best of the 3 movies.

Good popcorn movie and surprising a REALLY GOOD score. Gonna have to check out the OST.
Click to expand...
Already posted in the thread: https://www.halforums.com/threads/another-fargin-transformers-movie.25607/#post-836677 :p


#117

bhamv3

bhamv3

I just got back from it.

It's better than the first two. Though I know for the Eberts and Charlies among us, that's not saying much.

It feels like the film makers took into account some of the criticisms of the first two movies. There are no annoying ebonics robots, and there's much less focus on Shia Leboeuf's angst and much more focus on robots beating the crap out of each other. The plot holes are smaller this time (though that's sort of saying a sperm whale is smaller than a blue whale; they're still big). And generally speaking when something's happening on screen, you can actually make out what's happening, instead of the robot-shaped blurs we got before.

Having said that though, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a horrible actress and she should be banned from ever acting again. And if Wheelie from the second movie annoyed you, there's another robot in the third movie who you will hate with the heat of a thousand burning suns.

Finally...

NOOOOO!!!! IRONHIDE!!!!!


#118

Shannow

Shannow

Filled..completely filled with Bay-isms. I am not saying I did not enjoy it, and it was defintiely better than the last two, but there were a lot of faults with this movie. A lot. I thought that the camera was going to get a sexual harassment suit against it by the end of the movie, the way it constantly and slowly went over the girl friend.


#119

KCWM

KCWM

Best of the three, but 30 minutes too long. I second that the robots are easier to make out in the fights. The girl in the movie is better looking than Megan Fox (IMHO) and is a better actress, which isn't saying much. I actually hated the whole girlfriend angle...could have been a stronger movie without it.


#120

LittleSin

LittleSin

My husband is gone to see this right now. I wish could have gone so I could record what probably would have been a very annoyed video rant.

As it is, I'll save the money for Harry Potter.


#121

R

Raemon777

Okay, all you guys who think it was better than the last two.... I have no idea what movie you watched but it wasn't the one I did.

I mean, I understood what kind of movie I was getting into. I'm okay with it not being deep, or amazingly acted, or being a profound statement about the role of humanity in the greater cosmos. I liked the first movie okay. I thought the second movie was two hours of decent film wrapped in about twenty minutes of suck. I was genuinely hoping for this to be a fun action flick, my source of explosions for this fourth of July.

This movie was twenty of minutes of decent action movie wrapped in two hours of awfulness. There were two forty-minute segments where I literally did not care at all what was going on or why. I reasonably cared about Sam at first, until it became clear that he really has zero useful skills in the event of an alien invasion apocalypse, and his primary motivation was rescuing a girl who makes Megan Fox look like a dazzling oscar winner. (Seriously, how did they find someone who felt MORE fake and exploited than Megan Fox did?)

I liked Optimus' little character arc when he found out his mentor betrayed everything he believed in. If the movie had actually been about him, or if Sam had somehow been relevant to anything ever, I might have cared about the explosions going on all over the place. Without that, even the explosions managed to be bland and meaningless.


#122

klew

klew

Shannow said:
Filled..completely filled with Bay-isms. I am not saying I did not enjoy it, and it was defintiely better than the last two, but there were a lot of faults with this movie. A lot. I thought that the camera was going to get a sexual harassment suit against it by the end of the movie, the way it constantly and slowly went over the girl friend.
Click to expand...
Bay seems to do that a lot, I was trying to notice shots that didn't include a panning/tracking shot. He loves the camera-orbiting-character shots.

I could have done without Optimus channeling Bull Pullman's Independence Day speech style in every line read.


#123

Jay

Jay

Raemon777 said:
Okay, all you guys who think it was better than the last two.... I have no idea what movie you watched but it wasn't the one I did.
Click to expand...
The movie I watched was Transformers 3.


#124

R

Raemon777

Oh that explains it. The one I watched as "Transformers: Dark of the Moon."

Anyone know where "Transformers 3" is playing?
Added at: 15:17
I could have done without Optimus channeling Bull Pullman's Independence Day speech style in every line read.
Click to expand...
I didn't mind that so much, although I did find myself quoting the speech word for word somewhere towards the end of the movie. It was ridiculous but in a fun way.


#125

Shannow

Shannow

So you are saying that the second one was better?


#126

Steve

Steve

The movie lost me at the beginning when Michael Bay tried to play off the moon landing as a real event and not the national hoax it actually was. Does anyone believe that, with the technology we had at that time, on our first try successfully shoot a rocket into space, have it land gingerly on the moon, let the astronauts get out and walk around while broadcasting, then get back into their ship and have it launched off the moon? Really? If so, Jesse Ventura would like to give you a chair head shot because you've never watched his show. After that all I had was to admire the hot female lead and the giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
And Roger Ebert lost 2 1/2 hours of his life that he could have used contemplating when he use to have a chin. I'm sure Gene Siskel would have rather spend 2 1/2 hours watching Transformers Dark of the Moon instead of rotting in hell but too bad for him.
Other than that I thought the movie was a fun summer movie.


#127

R

Raemon777

So you are saying that the second one was better?
Click to expand...
Honestly, yeah. If you cut out twenty minutes of sexist and racist jokes and people yelling for no reason, I think what's left of the second movie was a reasonably entertaining action flick. I could tell who was fighting who (for the most part). The shots of Optimus Prime really played up his awesomeness. The parents showing at the end and letting go of their son was a hamfisted attempt to pull emotional strings, but at least they made ANY attempt to be emotionally engaging.

The "action scenes" in the third movie just looked like a giant cloud of particle effects. There were no establishing shots - every scene seemed to start in the middle of a robot contorting around in some bizarre dance that didn't make sense while explosions went off, obscuring them. Even the fighting scenes with Optimus Prime were ONLY cool because he was Optimus Prime. And while they did get rid of many of the bad jokes that made the second one so painful, they also removed the last semblance of emotional engagement.


#128

Shannow

Shannow

The second was much, much worse.


#129

Tress

Tress

Steve said:
The movie lost me at the beginning when Michael Bay tried to play off the moon landing as a real event and not the national hoax it actually was. Does anyone believe that, with the technology we had at that time, on our first try successfully shoot a rocket into space, have it land gingerly on the moon, let the astronauts get out and walk around while broadcasting, then get back into their ship and have it launched off the moon? Really? If so, Jesse Ventura would like to give you a chair head shot because you've never watched his show. After that all I had was to admire the hot female lead and the giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
And Roger Ebert lost 2 1/2 hours of his life that he could have used contemplating when he use to have a chin. I'm sure Gene Siskel would have rather spend 2 1/2 hours watching Transformers Dark of the Moon instead of rotting in hell but too bad for him.
Other than that I thought the movie was a fun summer movie.
Click to expand...
Wow.


#130

Espy

Espy

Tress said:
Wow.
Click to expand...
Right? My brain just went :Leyla:

On a more serious note: So when I saw TF2 I had 3 VERY serious vodka martini's beforehand and I ended up sobering up halfway through. At that point I realized I had entered hell.
How much do I need to drink to make it through TF3? I feel like there is a "right" number of drinks but I'm unsure as to what it might be... Half a bottle of good Tequila? I mean, if 3 martini's didn't cut it...


#131

Jay

Jay

Steve said:
The movie lost me at the beginning when Michael Bay tried to play off the moon landing as a real event and not the national hoax it actually was. Does anyone believe that, with the technology we had at that time, on our first try successfully shoot a rocket into space, have it land gingerly on the moon, let the astronauts get out and walk around while broadcasting, then get back into their ship and have it launched off the moon? Really? If so, Jesse Ventura would like to give you a chair head shot because you've never watched his show. After that all I had was to admire the hot female lead and the giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
And Roger Ebert lost 2 1/2 hours of his life that he could have used contemplating when he use to have a chin. I'm sure Gene Siskel would have rather spend 2 1/2 hours watching Transformers Dark of the Moon instead of rotting in hell but too bad for him.
Other than that I thought the movie was a fun summer movie.
Click to expand...
What the fuck did I just read?

Raemon777 said:
Honestly, yeah. If you cut out twenty minutes of sexist and racist jokes and people yelling for no reason, I think what's left of the second movie was a reasonably entertaining action flick. I could tell who was fighting who (for the most part). The shots of Optimus Prime really played up his awesomeness. The parents showing at the end and letting go of their son was a hamfisted attempt to pull emotional strings, but at least they made ANY attempt to be emotionally engaging.

The "action scenes" in the third movie just looked like a giant cloud of particle effects. There were no establishing shots - every scene seemed to start in the middle of a robot contorting around in some bizarre dance that didn't make sense while explosions went off, obscuring them. Even the fighting scenes with Optimus Prime were ONLY cool because he was Optimus Prime. And while they did get rid of many of the bad jokes that made the second one so painful, they also removed the last semblance of emotional engagement.
Click to expand...
No... just no. I still think you watched the wrong movie.

How much do I need to drink to make it through TF3? I feel like there is a "right" number of drinks but I'm unsure as to what it might be... Half a bottle of good Tequila? I mean, if 3 martini's didn't cut it...
Click to expand...
The answer to this question is 0. Go sober and stop being a goddamn internet pissant nagging for no goddamn reason other to get on the "bandwagon". You're all big boys/girls, you should all be able to formulated your own opinions.

Try it, it tastes like individual freedom.


#132

Espy

Espy

Jay said:
The answer to this question is 0. Go sober and stop being a goddamn internet pissant nagging for no goddamn reason other to get on the "bandwagon". You're all big boys/girls, you should all be able to formulated your own opinions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for setting me straight Jay. What would I ever do without you and your name calling?:awesome:

And for the record, I'm being somewhat serious in my question and I'm betting there are a few other people that enjoy going to bad movies after some drinks.


#133

drifter

drifter

Steve said:
The movie lost me at the beginning when Michael Bay tried to play off the moon landing as a real event and not the national hoax it actually was. Does anyone believe that, with the technology we had at that time, on our first try successfully shoot a rocket into space, have it land gingerly on the moon, let the astronauts get out and walk around while broadcasting, then get back into their ship and have it launched off the moon? Really? If so, Jesse Ventura would like to give you a chair head shot because you've never watched his show. After that all I had was to admire the hot female lead and the giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
And Roger Ebert lost 2 1/2 hours of his life that he could have used contemplating when he use to have a chin. I'm sure Gene Siskel would have rather spend 2 1/2 hours watching Transformers Dark of the Moon instead of rotting in hell but too bad for him.
Other than that I thought the movie was a fun summer movie.
Click to expand...
wtf.gif


#134

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Thread about movie sequel derailed by insane conspiracy theory.

Damn, I love this forum!

... Also, tell Buzz Aldrin there was no moon landing. I would LOVE to know how that works out for ya.


#135

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Steve said:
The movie lost me at the beginning when Michael Bay tried to play off the moon landing as a real event and not the national hoax it actually was. Does anyone believe that, with the technology we had at that time, on our first try successfully shoot a rocket into space, have it land gingerly on the moon, let the astronauts get out and walk around while broadcasting, then get back into their ship and have it launched off the moon? Really? If so, Jesse Ventura would like to give you a chair head shot because you've never watched his show. After that all I had was to admire the hot female lead and the giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
And Roger Ebert lost 2 1/2 hours of his life that he could have used contemplating when he use to have a chin. I'm sure Gene Siskel would have rather spend 2 1/2 hours watching Transformers Dark of the Moon instead of rotting in hell but too bad for him.
Other than that I thought the movie was a fun summer movie.
Click to expand...
I think this is English for "My brain melted from Michael Bay's shithouse movie and I am not longer coherent."


#136

Cajungal

Cajungal

Espy said:
Thanks for setting me straight Jay. What would I ever do without you and your name calling?:awesome:

And for the record, I'm being somewhat serious in my question and I'm betting there are a few other people that enjoy going to bad movies after some drinks.
Click to expand...
Bah, you're just afraid of the cool, refreshing taste of individual freedom.


#137

Espy

Espy

Cajungal said:
Bah, you're just afraid of the cool, refreshing taste of individual freedom.
Click to expand...
I love my individual freedom mixed with some form of hard liquor thankyouverymuch


#138

Cajungal

Cajungal

Espy said:
I love my individual freedom mixed with some form of hard liquor thankyouverymuch
Click to expand...
Mmmm... Individual Freedom-tini. I could use about five of those tonight.


#139

Espy

Espy

Damn straight. Come on over, I'm mixing them with a little 'Merican flag.


#140

Cajungal

Cajungal

Fuck yeah!

...Man, if I kept liquor in my house, I'd try and make one of those now and then post a picture.


#141

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Espy said:
Damn straight. Come on over, I'm mixing them with a little 'Merican flag.
Click to expand...
Is that an open invitation? How long will it take to drive from Alberta to... Wherever you are?

Fuck it, I'm on my way anyway. Providence will guide me to you, and your alcohol, right?


#142

Tress

Tress

Espy said:
Damn straight. Come on over, I'm mixing them with a little 'Merican flag.
Click to expand...
Those are pretty good, actually:

The American Flag drink recipe

Other names: The Patriot
Ingredients

Mixing Instructions

This is a layered shot, with the end result being a layer of red, then white and blue. Fill the shot 1/3 of the way with grenadine. Using the back of a spoon (bar spoon if you have one), pour in the white creme de cacao. Use the same technique to fill the final 1/3 with blue curacao. Enjoy the effect.
Click to expand...


#143

drifter

drifter

God bless 'merica



... man, I really wanna try that.


#144

Espy

Espy

Chad Sexington said:
Is that an open invitation? How long will it take to drive from Alberta to... Wherever you are?

Fuck it, I'm on my way anyway. Providence will guide me to you, and your alcohol, right?
Click to expand...
I can't find a flaw in your logic.


#145

Steve

Steve

The reason Buzz did such a great job on the set is it wasn't the first time he acted on a movie set.
Anyway, getting back to the movie, the first movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than Bush's "terrorists were behind the 911 attack" gig. Building #7 didn't collapse on it's own.) and over the top action. The second movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than a lone gunman taking down JFK.) and over the top action.
So if you watched the first two movies, thought they sucked, and still shelled out your hard earned cash for this one you can officially call yourself Michael Bay's bitch because he got you. You knew it'd be more of the same.
Meanwhile Roger Ebert wants to whistle a tune but without a lower jaw all he can do is dribble.


#146



Jiarn

It was funny till you added the other conspiracy theories, then your troll was showing.


#147

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Jiarn said:
It was funny till you added the other conspiracy theories, then your troll was showing.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the tasteless shots at Roger Ebert that showed his trolling.


#148

Espy

Espy

Ravenpoe said:
I thought it was the tasteless shots at Roger Ebert that showed his trolling.
Click to expand...
Yeah... pretty low there "Steve".


#149

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Jay said:
The answer to this question is 0. Go sober and stop being a goddamn internet pissant nagging for no goddamn reason other to get on the "bandwagon". You're all big boys/girls, you should all be able to formulated your own opinions.

Try it, it tastes like individual freedom.
Click to expand...
Hey Jay, how much do I need to drink to make it through Dragon Age 2?


#150

Jay

Jay

escushion said:
Hey Jay, how much do I need to drink to make it through Dragon Age 2?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't know, maybe you like that mediocre game more than I did. As one who expressed oneself after experiencing it, I needed no alcohol.

/shrug

Could have helped, I was dehydrated after shedding all those tears of boredom.


#151

Tress

Tress

Ravenpoe said:
I thought it was the tasteless shots at Roger Ebert that showed his trolling.
Click to expand...
I thought it was obvious he was trolling in the first post, I was just amazed he went there.


#152

Jay

Jay

97.4M opening weekend.



#153

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

No one had any doubt it would make a shitload of money.


#154

Steve

Steve

Espy said:
Yeah... pretty low there "Steve".
Click to expand...
That may have been over the line. Was trying my best "Charlie" impersonation. Perhaps it's best to leave Charlie to Charlie. Apologies to those offended.


#155

Espy

Espy

I thought you were just a big Ryan Dunn fan. :p

No worries though man, I figured you were joking but again... what you said was the kind of thing the Dunn fans have been throwing at Ebert the last week so I wasn't sure.


#156

Steve

Steve

I am a Ryan Dunn fan but that had nothing to do with the post. I was just trying to display the absurdity of the criticism of Transformers Dark of the Moon. You can ridiculously pick a movie apart. And with the third being no different in format than the first two there's really not anything to complain about. If the first two were on par with "The Godfather" and then we got this one, yeah, beat the hell out of the movie, but when all three follow the exact same format at that point it becomes like an abusive relationship that one just can't get away from. The dig at Ebert was nothing more than a low blow at a psychical characteristic (intended no differently than calling someone fat, geek, etc.) was meant in jest and not to be mean spirited.


#157

figmentPez

figmentPez

On the main forums page, users found this page by searching for: "why didnt megan fox return in t3?"

Bwahahahaha!


#158

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Steve said:
That may have been over the line. Was trying my best "Charlie" impersonation.
Click to expand...
That didn't sound like Charlie at all, except maybe a drugged up Charlie Sheen.


#159

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Steve said:
That may have been over the line. Was trying my best "Charlie" impersonation. Perhaps it's best to leave Charlie to Charlie. Apologies to those offended.
Click to expand...
The only thing offended was humor itself.


#160

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

wut


#161



Disconnected

I liked tf 1, 2 and 3.
i have been Bay's bitch since "The Rock".


#162



Jiarn

I don't think this is a thread about if people enjoyed the film, but if it was a bad film by ratings standards.


#163

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I have zero interest in these movies, but I almost wish I'd been at this one's opening night in my college town, because it sounds like opening nights for this had fun, excited audiences. I know Spoony hated it in his review as he was talking about how game the audience was before the movie started and during the movie, but that's what I love about going to the movies, and audiences are so rarely fired up these days.


#164



Disconnected

Jiarn said:
I don't think this is a thread about if people enjoyed the film, but if it was a bad film by ratings standards.
Click to expand...
thank you for opinion, I will take it under advisement.


#165

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

You might even subscribe to his newsletter?


#166



Jiarn

Well I guess I worded it wrong, I meant that it sounded like you were correcting someone instead of stating an opinion. My mistake.


#167

Steve

Steve

Michael Bay is tearing this forum apart.


#168

Jay

Jay

Highest Grossing Independence weekend ever

Will Smith eat your heart out.


#169

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Jay said:
Highest Grossing Independence weekend ever

Will Smith eat your heart out.
Click to expand...
Means nothing. Doesn't say anything about how many tickets were actually sold.


#170

MindDetective

MindDetective

But what's the number of ticket sales?


#171

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

I... what the... oh, BRAVO, Steve. *golfclap*


#172

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

MindDetective said:
But what's the number of ticket sales?
Click to expand...
Haven't found that data yet. Everyone is fapping over the dollar signs.

But... according to EW, Spider-Man 2 sold more tickets in spite of a lower take.

Which is my point anyway. Grosses are just big numbers to numb the public with. Says nothing about how many people actually bought tickets (and less about how many STAYED :p).


#173



Jiarn

They showed this in 3D, with the higher ticket prices from those sales it's very obvious it didn't have higher tickets, just higher $ tags.


#174

Steve

Steve

SpecialKO said:
As a glasses-wearer, until 3D is glasses-less, it can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...
With an attitude like that you'll be missing Titanic in 3D. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/19/titanic-3d-rerelease/


#175

Gusto

Gusto

I wear doubles glasses to 3D movies. :p


#176

Steve

Steve

I wonder how many guys will see this just for a 3D nude Kate Winslet?

Gusto said:
I wear doubles glasses to 3D movies. :p
Click to expand...
I am holding out for glasses that make the world 2D.


#177

Espy

Espy

Remember, if a movie makes lots of money it's good. If it doesn't then it sucks. It's the law.


#178

Jay

Jay

How much did The Hurt Locker make? And how much did Avatar make?


#179

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Jay said:
How much did The Hurt Locker make? And how much did Avatar make?
Click to expand...
Google it?


#180

Jay

Jay

escushion said:
Google it?
Click to expand...


#181

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Like a billion vs 20M


#182

Espy

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Like a billion vs 20M
Click to expand...
So... You're saying the hurt locker sucks donkey balls?


#183

Shannow

Shannow

Don't argue with him, it is pointless.


#184

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Steve said:
I wonder how many guys will see this just for a 3D nude Kate Winslet?
Click to expand...
No thanks, man, post-production 3D always makes things look flat.
....
....
....
:rimshot:


#185

Tress

Tress

Jay said:
How much did The Hurt Locker make? And how much did Avatar make?
Click to expand...
Oh, you could do better than that.

The Hurt Locker: 40 million
Epic Movie: 86.9 million

Thus, Epic Movie is better than The Hurt Locker. Damn, people are stupid...


#186

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

I was not planning to see the movie, but the Flix Brewhouse just opened behind my house, which I have been dying to try out since I found out they were building it. The only movie I even have a remote hint of interest is Transformers 3, so I guess that will have to be it this week.


#187

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

ScytheRexx said:
I was not planning to see the movie, but the Flix Brewhouse just opened behind my house, which I have been dying to try out since I found out they were building it. The only movie I even have a remote hint of interest is Transformers 3, so I guess that will have to be it this week.
Click to expand...
Bad Teacher is supposedly pretty funny. And fuck, the drive to the Alamo Drafthouse is worth it.

edit: I spoke before I checked out the beer menu. That's impressive


#188

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Bad Teacher is supposedly pretty funny. And fuck, the drive to the Alamo Drafthouse is worth it.
Click to expand...
Oh trust me, whenever I do go to a movie I always hit the Alamo, it is actually not that long of a drive for me. Just shoot down the toll road and it takes ten minutes. My interest is the fact the Flix Brewhouse is literally right behind my house, walking distance, and seems to be similar to the Alamo. I want to see how well it actually holds up. If it does, I may go there more often. If it does not, I always got the Alamo.]

Not really interested in Bad Teacher, though I may see if that changes. Can't go to the movie for another week anyways.


#189

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I saw it last night for $5. And I did not feel completely ripped off, like I did the last two times.

Just a generally dumb pop-corn flick, with out insulting the audience too greatly.

I felt entertained at the end of it.


#190

Shegokigo

Shegokigo


^
Would have made a more watchable Transformers flick.

I'm very glad the garbage that was done to the series is finished with film. It can go back to resting in peace.... sorta.


#191

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Shegokigo said:
I'm very glad the garbage that was done to the series is finished with film. It can go back to resting in peace.... sorta.
Click to expand...
If you think they're gonna stop making these after this one made $150m in 5 days, then well


#192

Espy

Espy

They should give the series to the only director with the balls to follow up Bay's balls: Brett Ratner. He'll sex up those robots and show Bay how to do a crappy version of Bay like no one else.


#193

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I saw it, actually liked it. Was too long, though. Could have been better with maybe 30 minutes less.


#194

fade

fade

I'm not reading 6 pages, but I can say I don't find anything compelling about the transformers movies. I can't explain it. I'm gen x. I loved the cartoon. I loved the animated film. But I just didn't care for the movies. I think it's Michael Bay's directing. Anything close to a plot point is buried in glitzy shots. It's like Speilberg in thin imitation. Even when we're just talking there's some distracting wide shot with music and bigness. I don't like the CG effects either. They really look like CG. They don't feel like they are part of the scene, and the transformers are so intricate, I can't tell if I'm looking at his face or ass. Why do they have to be so intricate? I just feel no empathy or connection to the story.


#195

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

It's Shia Le'buttefuke.

That and the fact that you can't make out the fights, like at all.

Those two reasons made all 3 god aweful films.


#196



Philosopher B.

Sam Witwicky is not a very likable protagonist. It sounds like he's a real asshole in this film.


#197

@Li3n

@Li3n

Philosopher B. said:
Sam Witwicky is not a very likable protagonist.
Click to expand...
Even if he was, the film is supposed to be about the giant transforming robots, not some kid and his highly unlikely success with the opposite sex...

Shegokigo said:
That and the fact that you can't make out the fights, like at all.
Click to expand...
QFFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#198

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

This film's effects are like a Sam Peckinpah fight scene. Or Zach Snyder if you are too young for the first reference....


#199

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Well, saw it today. Expected to hate it like I did the second movie (worst dollar for dollar movie ever made) but didn't. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't good. But being a former super Transformers nerd as a kid and younger self I actually kind of dug a few of the inside nods there to old school Transformers. The movie's plot was basically cobbled together from two episodes of the old show, Megatron's Master Plan and The Ultimate Doom. One centered on Megatron's tricking humanity to give the Autobots the boot off of Earth and the other was a plan to bring Cybertron into orbit around Earth. Kinda familiar sounding. Anyways, the movie still centered too much on fucking Shia Laboof, the single most unlikable hero in any movie series ever and his God awful life problems. OH NOOOOOO, I LIVE IN AN AWESOME APARTMENT WITH DUCKMOUTH MCAWESOMEBODY MY LIFE IS SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.

When Leonard Nimoy turns on the Autobots for no reason, I was kind of bummed he didn't obliterate Frances McDormand in the process. Mouthy bitch kind of deserved it the way she treated them. That actually goes for all of them. Man, the Autobots sure don't seem to mind being treated like fucking children by mouthy government officials.


#200

strawman

strawman

Watched it tonight. They vastly improved the fighting scenes. Probably overused the slo-mo, but honestly it was significantly better in this regard than the previous films. Also, they either cut back or didn't use the shakey cam. It wasn't annoying enough to be noticeable if it was there.

The "love interest" and associate plot was worse than horrible tripe. The overall plot involving the robots was actually enjoyable.


#201

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I will bribe Michael Bay to not include his parents in the next movie.


#202



Philosopher B.

I'm pretty sure he's got enough money. You'll have to grow boobs and wash his car ...


#203

Frank

Frankie Williamson

Funny thing, they hire Frank Welker to do his Dr. Claw/Soundwave voice, then don't bother to do the synthing necessary to make it Soundwavey.


#204

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

It was definitely too long. Every time I thought it was about to reach the end they would drag it out. The last scene itself was way longer then it needed to be. It was still leaps and bound better then the last one.

Now for my overall issues with it.

The Sentinel Prime face turn was way to earlier and way to abrupt. They should have built it up a lot longer instead of him just all of a sudden "I'm a bad guy now" and killing Ironhide. It was even more confusing since the only interaction we had with him before that was him giving back the autobot matrix to Optimus and then fleeing from decepticons, which made it all the more confusing.

Why, ever since Jazz, can we not show an Autobot die in BATTLE? Ironhide had to get shot in the back, and that random ugly looking "scientist" transformer was executed. They should have saved Ironhide for the end and had him go out a hero, but no... I guess we can't let it look like he can be defeated without trickery. Even Optimus in the second movie was stabbed in the back.

Also, I thought I read somewhere that Megatron was going to take a backseat and Shockwave was going to be the main villain of this one. I guess they were lying, because all Shockwave did was have a cameo at the beginning and then vanished till the end when he showed up just in time to look around evily at people before the humans and Optimus smash his face off. Don't even get me started on Soundwave, he actually seemed to have more point as the satellite in the second film.

Lastly, Starscream getting killed by Sam is fucking BULLSHIT.

In the end, it's still a fun movie to watch. Like I said before it gave me an excuse to try out the new Flix Brewhouse. If you live in the Austin or Round Rock area I recommend at least giving the place a try, the food was really tasty, the chairs a lot more comfortable then I am used to, and a pretty neat atmosphere (and a really big bar). Tonight they were pretty empty, as they still need to get the word out that they are open now. Figured I would give them a shout out. I would like to see them succeed.


#205

Espy

Espy

But did the chairs jiggle? Cuz buddy? You can keep your beer and your food and your comfort, I just want jiggle.


#206

Null

Null

I had no expectations going in - I thought Transformers 2 sucked but liked the first one - and really enjoyed this one. Yeah, it's got problems. Probably big ones. But while the movie was playing, I didn't notice or care. I had a great time watching it. Is it a great movie? Fuck no. But I thought it was awesome, would love to see it again, and can't wait to get it on DVD.


#207

Adam

Adammon

I didn't enjoy it. Michael Bay has to ramp up everything TO THE EXTREME and it just begins to grate on me after a while.

The Director of Intelligence has to be a bitch, but not just a regular bitch, a BITCH TO THE EXTREME!
Gfs boss has to be a really nice guy TO THE EXTREME.
Sam's boss has to be a wacko TO THE EXTREME.
Sam and gf have to have a relationship that goes up and down TO THE EXTREME.

When minor character moments have to be TO THE EXTREME, the giant explosions kind of lose their impact. I think I'm getting old :(


#208

strawman

strawman

It's an easy way to make audiences feel they "know" the character without spending all that time on messy, expensive character development. Time which could be used for MORE ROBOT FIGHTS AND EXPLOSIONS.

Take the first movie - within the first few minutes you know that sam is a fool/nerd who's low on cash, wants a car, and his teacher is the "bored/cynical" variety. Bam. Now let's move into what happens when you throw these idiots in a mixer with an old alien machine war that somehow was moved to Earth.

It's far, far from good film, but you oughtn't be going to these with the expectation of good character development.

The human characters are little more than set dressing.


#209

Fun Size

Fun Size

Adammon said:
I didn't enjoy it. Michael Bay has to ramp up everything TO THE EXTREME and it just begins to grate on me after a while.

The Director of Intelligence has to be a bitch, but not just a regular bitch, a BITCH TO THE EXTREME!
Gfs boss has to be a really nice guy TO THE EXTREME.
Sam's boss has to be a wacko TO THE EXTREME.
Sam and gf have to have a relationship that goes up and down TO THE EXTREME.

When minor character moments have to be TO THE EXTREME, the giant explosions kind of lose their impact. I think I'm getting old :(
Click to expand...
Be glad he cut out the bathroom scenes.


#210

Adam

Adammon

stienman said:
It's an easy way to make audiences feel they "know" the character without spending all that time on messy, expensive character development. Time which could be used for MORE ROBOT FIGHTS AND EXPLOSIONS.

Take the first movie - within the first few minutes you know that sam is a fool/nerd who's low on cash, wants a car, and his teacher is the "bored/cynical" variety. Bam. Now let's move into what happens when you throw these idiots in a mixer with an old alien machine war that somehow was moved to Earth.

It's far, far from good film, but you oughtn't be going to these with the expectation of good character development.

The human characters are little more than set dressing.
Click to expand...
Which is fair enough, but my problem isn't the character development, it's the method of character development TO THE EXTREME. That's not developing characters, it's developing caricatures. Because honestly, I don't think Michael Bay understands how to develop characters.

If Michael Bay directed Titanic, Rose would have been a down and out stripper and Jack would have been a card-shark secret billionaire who threw together an electric hot air balloon seconds before the Titanic jumped over the iceberg in a pyrotechnic show. And parts of the ship would have been attached to the Hot Air balloon and Jack would have been trapped between holding onto the balloon with one hand and holding onto the ship with the other. And then he would have would let go and crashed into the ocean with a huge explosion.

If Michael Bay directed The Wizard of Oz, the Cowardly Lion would have been a ferocious man-eating were-tiger played by Common, the Tin Man would have been a 30 ft tall CGI construct voiced by Keith David and the Scarecrow would have been Nicholas Cage in full out wacko mode wearing no makeup. Dorothy would have been a down and out stripper played by Megan Fox, er, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. In the end, throwing water on the Wicked Witch would have caused a huge fireball that incinerated most of Oz.

If Michael Bay directed Aliens, we wouldn't have seen a human until 45 minutes into the movie.


#211

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Fun Size said:
Be glad he cut out the bathroom scenes.
Click to expand...
I thought the whole movie was the bathroom scene.....


#212

Fun Size

Fun Size

Honestly, I have yet to see one of the transformers movies. I see so few movies for grown ups, I'm hesitant to use them up on this.


#213

Espy

Espy

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some real character development in the TF movies.

Hell, I'd settle for the main characters actually being Transformers. Crazy, I know.


#214

Shannow

Shannow

Adammon said:
If Michael Bay directed The Wizard of Oz, the Cowardly Lion would have been a ferocious man-eating were-tiger played by Common, the Tin Man would have been a 30 ft tall CGI construct voiced by Keith David and the Scarecrow would have been Nicholas Cage in full out wacko mode wearing no makeup. Dorothy would have been a down and out stripper played by Megan Fox, er, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. In the end, throwing water on the Wicked Witch would have caused a huge fireball that incinerated most of Oz.
Click to expand...
listen. I am not going to lie here. I would watch the living hell out of that.


#215

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Yeah, seriously, when you describe them like that, at least Wizard of Oz and Titanic sound amazing.


#216

@Li3n

@Li3n

Adammon said:
If Michael Bay directed The Wizard of Oz, the Cowardly Lion would have been a ferocious man-eating were-tiger played by Common, the Tin Man would have been a 30 ft tall CGI construct voiced by Keith David and the Scarecrow would have been Nicholas Cage in full out wacko mode wearing no makeup. Dorothy would have been a down and out stripper played by Megan Fox, er, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. In the end, throwing water on the Wicked Witch would have caused a huge fireball that incinerated most of Oz.
Click to expand...
And he'd still manage to make it boring somehow...


Top