Transformers! (Merged) - Page 12

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-09-2007, 11:53 AM

If I saw a movie I find morally repugnant, it would be hard to post as such without offending people who liked it.

If I saw a movie I find entertaining in a dumb actiony vein, it would be hard for me to let it go when people say the movie was too unbelievable/dumb to enjoy, since I am sure that they just tried to take it too seriously.

I get in trouble for being on either side of these equations all the time.

Thanks to everyone for understanding such a conundrum.

BarTopDancer · 07-09-2007, 01:05 PM

But are you going to go see it and decide for yourself?

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-09-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

But are you going to go see it and decide for yourself?

I'll see it eventually - either in the theaters or on DVD. We don't see many movies in the theater, but we are due for an actioner, since we didn't see Spiderman 3. If we get a spare evening we'll totally go for it.

Nephythys · 07-09-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I'll see it eventually - either in the theaters or on DVD. We don't see many movies in the theater, but we are due for an actioner, since we didn't see Spiderman 3. If we get a spare evening we'll totally go for it.

No loss on Spiderman 3

this movie is MUCH better.

innerSpaceman · 07-09-2007, 02:43 PM

And, heheheh, for me to find The Transformers even worse than Spiderman 3 is another woeful comment on the former.

Alex · 07-09-2007, 03:19 PM

I'll have to agree that Transformers is better than Spider-Man 3. At least has more screen presence than Mr. Peter Parker and the girl was better to look at than Pointy Face Dunst.

Mousey Girl · 07-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Since I could not find my gift certificates it looks like we won't be going to see Transformers. I, honestly, would much MUCH rather see Harry Potter this weekend.

xharryb · 07-09-2007, 04:25 PM

I'd like to make a comment on the geography issues...

First of all, i completely agree that they should have made a greater attempt at making the locations nonspecific if that is what they wanted. However, for those of us that don't live in that part of the country and have never even visited those places, where they were never even crossed my mind. Since I don't live there, i don't autimatically see buildings and say "hey! That's LA!" I don't find that skyline to be nearly as recognizable as say NYC. What it comes down to really is that I don;t think they intended for it to be LA in the movie, they were just overly lazy at disguising the details. A flaw? Sure. Does it take me, a non Californian out of the picture? not really.

I did find, however, that my biggest complaint was the fact that they went to any city. It just seems to go against the nature of the Autobots. They're mission is to protect the humans, so they willingly choose to take the bait from a less populated environment into a center of population. Even in the cartoon they would surely have taken the fight further away from people, into the desert or something.

Nephythys · 07-09-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousey Girl

Since I could not find my gift certificates it looks like we won't be going to see Transformers. I, honestly, would much MUCH rather see Harry Potter this weekend.

I'm going through Harry Potter grief right now. I won't get to see it til the weekend or later

we have so many appointments and craziness this week that seeing it any sooner won't happen.

innerSpaceman · 07-09-2007, 04:34 PM

Well, in defense of the Autobots, I think it was Hotty the Army Dude who decided to take the cube to the nearest huge metropolis.

That they took a wrong turn on the way to 'Mission City' was also his fault.

Hey, were they supposed to be in Mission City when they were all over Griffith Observatory, or was that enough of a landmark to be Los Angeles to the average filmgoer??

07-09-2007, 11:53 AM	#1
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	If I saw a movie I find morally repugnant, it would be hard to post as such without offending people who liked it. If I saw a movie I find entertaining in a dumb actiony vein, it would be hard for me to let it go when people say the movie was too unbelievable/dumb to enjoy, since I am sure that they just tried to take it too seriously. I get in trouble for being on either side of these equations all the time. Thanks to everyone for understanding such a conundrum. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 01:05 PM	#2
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	But are you going to go see it and decide for yourself? __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 02:43 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	And, heheheh, for me to find The Transformers even worse than Spiderman 3 is another woeful comment on the former.
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 03:19 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'll have to agree that Transformers is better than Spider-Man 3. At least has more screen presence than Mr. Peter Parker and the girl was better to look at than Pointy Face Dunst.
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 03:41 PM	#7
Mousey Girl Just Me Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In The Flagon With The Dragon Posts: 2,437	Since I could not find my gift certificates it looks like we won't be going to see Transformers. I, honestly, would much MUCH rather see Harry Potter this weekend.
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 04:25 PM	#8
xharryb D'oh! Join Date: May 2006 Location: Springfield Posts: 104	I'd like to make a comment on the geography issues... First of all, i completely agree that they should have made a greater attempt at making the locations nonspecific if that is what they wanted. However, for those of us that don't live in that part of the country and have never even visited those places, where they were never even crossed my mind. Since I don't live there, i don't autimatically see buildings and say "hey! That's LA!" I don't find that skyline to be nearly as recognizable as say NYC. What it comes down to really is that I don;t think they intended for it to be LA in the movie, they were just overly lazy at disguising the details. A flaw? Sure. Does it take me, a non Californian out of the picture? not really. I did find, however, that my biggest complaint was the fact that they went to any city. It just seems to go against the nature of the Autobots. They're mission is to protect the humans, so they willingly choose to take the bait from a less populated environment into a center of population. Even in the cartoon they would surely have taken the fight further away from people, into the desert or something.
	Submit to Quotes

07-09-2007, 04:34 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, in defense of the Autobots, I think it was Hotty the Army Dude who decided to take the cube to the nearest huge metropolis. That they took a wrong turn on the way to 'Mission City' was also his fault. Hey, were they supposed to be in Mission City when they were all over Griffith Observatory, or was that enough of a landmark to be Los Angeles to the average filmgoer??
	Submit to Quotes