Transformers 2: Really?

[Future Proof]

Yea, I saw this movie tonight and it was absolutely terrible. Every single detail from mom eating pot brownies despite the label on the bag being very clear, to how the fight in Freedom City from TF1 could even be spun into a cover-up... yea, this was an all-time low for the kind of money it's making. Sam went to robot heaven when he died for chrissakes!

The problem with the movie Idiocracy is that it becomes a bit more true with each passing month.

[Sean]

Dammit people!!! Please stop going to see this assload of crap!!!!

[dubman]

i didnt really want to see this until the reviews of how meta its awfulness is started coming in. gave me speedracer syndrome of 'it must be this bizarre orgy of alienating bullshit that has everyone leaving the theatre confused and delerious"

but i didnt see speedracer either because there's almost no movie that can be that bracing in its own filth. its probably just a fucking chore to sit through. the bank this is making has me confused too. it's a sequel. and it's always looked like a shitty sequel. no one likes shia thebeef no matter how hard he tries. i get the megan fox bit to an extent but shes no record breaker.

sean what are some of the ridiculous things they say?
"it needs a DOG! did you see UP? you cant have a movie about a HOUSE or a CASTLE without a DOG."

the commercials we see before the movie starts where "it takes a lot of calls to make a movie but one to mess it up" even acknowledge how shit deteriorates through people who have no clue

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Oh, but YOU'RE thebeef, to me.

I like that Shai LeBoufe(sp?) kid.

[kagenaki koe]

Originally Posted by dubman

gave me speedracer syndrome of 'it must be this bizarre orgy of alienating bullshit that has everyone leaving the theatre confused and delerious"

but i didnt see speedracer either because there's almost no movie that can be that bracing in its own filth. its probably just a fucking chore to sit through. the bank this is making has me confused too.

i have not seen Speed Racer either, but if i were to go by the reviews of the people who did enjoy it, i would say that the only difference between the two would be is that TF2 made money.

[Steven Beck]

myrrh and kagenaki koe get it. this movie was fucking awesome. it was fucking awesome because fucking optimus prime shot the fucking faces off some fucking decepticons.

also, fucking megan fox was bent over a fucking motorcycle in like the first fucking 5 minutes.

sean, you're being a cunt. T2 (yes, T2 now stands for Transformers 2) is just as much a work of art as your cartoons. fuck,

the official top ten reasons why T2 was fucking balls out awesome:

1) optimus fucking prime got jet wings and a big fucking cannon and fucked shit up all over the desert.

2) megan fox looks like she is going to fuck everything on set all the time. she's also sweaty and slo-mo boob running all the fucking time.

3) bumble bee fucking wrecked shit on some fucking decepticon in egypt.

4) the fucking constructorcons are in the fucking movie.

5) sam died and went to FUCKING ROBOT HEAVEN.

6) jive talking nigger-bot twins.

7) fucking soundwave is fucking in this movie.

8) HUMAN LOOKING FUCKING DECEPTICON WITH PREHENSILE TONGUE.

9) optimus prime was fucking ice cold killer in this. he personally snapped like 15 fuckers in half and was all like "CHEAP TIN FUCK"

10) this will be out on bluray soon and we'll be able to pause and zoom in on megan fox and maybe see her pussy lips.

so there. I'm glad i could put this to rest.

sean - the reason this movie made more money than yours will is because it was fucking cock-snapping crazy awesome.

also, who are you to judge what a quality film is, while looking down your nose at 'the public' who pay fat wads of cash hand over fist to see this OBVISOUSLY FUCKING HORRID movie. quality is subjective. maybe your view of quality is actually fucking cack that no-one want to pay to see, while this is fucking life changing cinema.

maybe.

[Deckard]

^^ He's Michael fucking Bay, people!


Sean - I think this brief piece gives an insight into why we get what we do. Concerning Pixar's Up:

It will be the first animated feature ever to open the Cannes film festival this year, and is produced by a company whose last two films won the best animation Oscar. Yet Pixar's next project, Up, is now the target of Wall Street analysts and toy manufacturers alike, for not being commercial enough.

There are also concerns from toy-makers that Up will prove a downer. Thinkway Toys, whose range of products related to Pixar's 2006 film Cars helped the film to a merchandise sales record of $5bn, is not creating a single toy based on the new movie. Disney stores will offer only limited merchandise to promote Up.

But thankfully:

Disney chief executive, Robert A Iger, said the company was focused on delivering "great films", rather than adopting a blind adherence to commercial pressures. "If a great film gives birth to a franchise, we are the first company to leverage such success," he said. "A check-the-boxes approach to creativity is more likely to result in blandness and failure."

Someone pat that man on the back.

-

Another piece of interest, this one from a couple of years ago and the first Transformers film:

One of this summer's big blockbusters is a movie designed with one purpose: to sell toys. John Anderson looks at how Transformers takes product placement to the final frontier...

(Link)

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

sean what are some of the ridiculous things they say?
"it needs a DOG! did you see UP? you cant have a movie about a HOUSE or a CASTLE without a DOG."

I wish I could give you concrete examples without disclosing key story points in the movie I'm working on, but it's hard. Actually, here's one - the character of Spock was raised by us in a recent meeting with executives (who shall remain nameless) as an example of an engaging, compelling, conflicted character who struggles to fit into both worlds he's a part of. Being raised as a half human on the planet Vulcan forced him to suppress his human, emotional characteristics, and when among humans, he now comes across as cold, overly logical and relatively out of place. But from time to time, his emotions bubble to the surface, putting him in totally awkward personal situations, but also highlighting the fact that his cross-breeding makes him uniquely qualified to do stuff that no other character is capable of. So essentially, something he's always lived with as if it's a weakness can also be one of his greatest strengths, and he struggles with that conflict.

The executive response to this was "no no no - Spock embraces his differences, and they allow him to fit perfectly into both worlds." After a brief, awkward silence, one of us on the creative side answered, "but in the new movie, you actually see him getting teased for being half human as a kid, and then it takes his older self telling him not to bury his emotions so deeply to get him to even begin accepting the idea of it". The executive response to this was "well sure, in the movie, yes", to which I replied, "it's that way in the old series, too. He's always super-logical, denying his emotional side until some life or death situation forces it out of him. And even then there was always a comedic back and forth between Spock and McCoy afterwards where Spock would cover up his emotional display with some kind of logical explanation..." at which point I was cut off by this executive with "no, that's not right. I'm a trekkie, I know this stuff really well." So I said, "okay, I guess we disagree on who Spock is..." only to be cut off again with "hold on - I'm not telling you I disagree....I'm telling you that you're wrong".

The meeting then moved on to completely new topics for the next ten minutes or so, until out of absolutely nowhere, that same executive blurts out to us "by the way, you ALL have the wrong idea about who Spock is!" He may as well have been stomping his feet on the ground with a pouty face when he had that final little outburst. It was incredible to watch. And even more incredible if you're familiar with how the Spock analogy relates to a character in the film we've been developing with these people for over a year.

What the hell do you say to that kind of an egotistical nutwad who has to be right at all costs, simply saying anything to win? The guy can fire you if he wants, and he has fired a shitload of people already. So you just shut up and hope he'll forget what he said and that you can still make a decent movie. But I've come to refer to these incidents as his "sky is green" moments - as in you say "the sky is blue", and he replies "no it's not - it's green." You look up and say "but I'm looking at it right now, and I can see that it's blue", to which he would just say "look, I'm an expert on the sky, and I'm telling you that it's green".

And the other executive we primarily deal with just always has to be the smartest person in the room - to the point that they'll tell you your idea doesn't work, and will then proceed to actually pitch the exact same idea back to you in their own wording as if it's theirs, as an idea that would work. Although in those instances, you can just go along with it and say "um....good idea", knowing that at least you can do what you wanted to do in the first place with that part of the story.

Not sure if any of this makes much sense out of context of the day to day development of this project, but it's been maddening.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

^^ He's Michael fucking Bay, people!


Sean - I think this brief piece gives an insight into why we get what we do. Concerning Pixar's Up:

Absolutely true. You would be surprised how much power the marketing department has here at Sony. They can trump virtually anyone, including the director of the film, on decisions about everything from character arcs, to designs, to music, etc. Man...if I hear the phrase "four quadrant family friendly" one more time, I think I may punch someone in the throat.

And do you wanna know the really magical part? "Up" is a movie that our executives would never in a million years allow to be made here for the very reasons you've cited, but since it made tons of money, they suddenly use it as reference for how to tell a story in every development meeting we have with them. Which, incidentally, I'd be happy about if they weren't wrong in their analysis and conclusions about why it works so well most of the time. That's why a movie like Transformers 2 is so dangerous. Now they'll start holding it up as an example because of all the money it made, despite being equally ignorant about what's wrong with it quality-wise.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

I wish I could give you concrete examples without disclosing key story points in the movie I'm working on, but it's hard. Actually, here's one - the character of Spock was raised by us in a recent meeting with executives (who shall remain nameless) as an example of an engaging, compelling, conflicted character who struggles to fit into both worlds he's a part of. Being raised as a half human on the planet Vulcan forced him to suppress his human, emotional characteristics, and when among humans, he now comes across as cold, overly logical and relatively out of place. But from time to time, his emotions bubble to the surface, putting him in totally awkward personal situations, but also highlighting the fact that his cross-breeding makes him uniquely qualified to do stuff that no other character is capable of. So essentially, something he's always lived with as if it's a weakness can also be one of his greatest strengths, and he struggles with that conflict.

The executive response to this was "no no no - Spock embraces his differences, and they allow him to fit perfectly into both worlds." After a brief, awkward silence, one of us on the creative side answered, "but in the new movie, you actually see him getting teased for being half human as a kid, and then it takes his older self telling him not to bury his emotions so deeply to get him to even begin accepting the idea of it". The executive response to this was "well sure, in the movie, yes", to which I replied, "it's that way in the old series, too. He's always super-logical, denying his emotional side until some life or death situation forces it out of him. And even then there was always a comedic back and forth between Spock and McCoy afterwards where Spock would cover up his emotional display with some kind of logical explanation..." at which point I was cut off by this executive with "no, that's not right. I'm a trekkie, I know this stuff really well." So I said, "okay, I guess we disagree on who Spock is..." only to be cut off again with "hold on - I'm not telling you I disagree....I'm telling you that you're wrong".

The meeting then moved on to completely new topics for the next ten minutes or so, until out of absolutely nowhere, that same executive blurts out to us "by the way, you ALL have the wrong idea about who Spock is!" He may as well have been stomping his feet on the ground with a pouty face when he had that final little outburst. It was incredible to watch. And even more incredible if you're familiar with how the Spock analogy relates to a character in the film we've been developing with these people for over a year.

What the hell do you say to that kind of an egotistical nutwad who has to be right at all costs, simply saying anything to win? The guy can fire you if he wants, and he has fired a shitload of people already. So you just shut up and hope he'll forget what he said and that you can still make a decent movie. But I've come to refer to these incidents as his "sky is green" moments - as in you say "the sky is blue", and he replies "no it's not - it's green." You look up and say "but I'm looking at it right now, and I can see that it's blue", to which he would just say "look, I'm an expert on the sky, and I'm telling you that it's green".

And the other executive we primarily deal with just always has to be the smartest person in the room - to the point that they'll tell you your idea doesn't work, and will then proceed to actually pitch the exact same idea back to you in their own wording as if it's theirs, as an idea that would work. Although in those instances, you can just go along with it and say "um....good idea", knowing that at least you can do what you wanted to do in the first place with that part of the story.

Not sure if any of this makes much sense out of context of the day to day development of this project, but it's been maddening.

how does this not kill you?

as a freelance designer finally getting himself going theres only a few people who needle me with pointless details to make it seem like they have important things to say. and the concept of that bothers me more than what they actually say, but just for that i talk back and argue with them anyway.
in your position i'd just never stop yelling at everyone. even after i'd get fired.