Crainy

Well yes, when a movie is divisive, the people that dislike it often times scream the loudest. But also often times divisive movies are the best of movies, because great art is not everyone and never will be.

There are many people like me that love and appreciate the Transformers movies. As I always like to say, Michael Bays work has a great deal of artistry to it that I think far to few people can appreciate. Michael Bay is a director that has a very specific style unique to him that he uses to tell his stories and his style definitely doesnt appeal to everyone. But thats the thing, art often times is divisive and not for everyone and thats ok. You dont have to like his movies, but you are wrong in thinking that there arent also alot of people who see alot of value in Michael Bays work.

I have to agree here. I havent seen Titanic in a long time, but it never struck me as a particularly great movie. Its definitely a good movie, but I dont think its on the level of some of James Camerons other work, particularly Avatar, Aliens or T2.

You are terribly misinformed. What happened with Transformers 2 happened because of the writers strike. Yes, the script was rushed and Bay was the first to admit that. He didnt move the release date because he was confident that he could make a quality product anyways and he also made preparations for the writers strike before it happened so the writers and the entire production team had an easier time. That they didnt move the release date WAS an act of dedication and care, in Michael Bays own way (he´s also a director that really cares about staying on budget). This is a terrible example of yours and means nothing. Even Transformers 2 is a movie made with alot of dedication and care, it was just a victim of its circumstances. They build a town in the desert for it just so they have something to blow up for the final act. They filmed on-location in egypt and to my knowledge it was the first movie in many many years that got the permission to film at and ON the Pyramids. Michael Bay flew halfway across the world just for a single day, just so he could personally direct the CGI crew when they were creating the films only (and franchises first) fully CGI animated sequence (the decepticon scene on the crashed decepticon spaceship). They also created the most complex CGI shot of the time for this movie with Devastator taking down the Pyramids. Michael Bay worked on the final cut of the movie personally up until HOURS before the movies initial premiere. That Transformers 2 didnt need to move its release date is a testament to Michael Bays work ethic. I personally think he should have moved the release date as writing the script in just two weeks definitely resulted in a worse movie, but it was not an easy decision. Transformers 2 is a flawed movie, but its still a labor of love. If you want to judge a man and his work, be sure to inform yourself properly first, because what you are saying here is just wrong.

That statement was in regards to dispelling myths that lead into question Michael Bays integrity as a filmmaker. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of facts. What Michael Bay does and does not and wether or not his movies were made with dedication and care put into them (no matter if you like the end result or not) is a matter of facts, not a matter of opinion. I stated the objective facts. Opinions are irrelevant on this matter. Glad you like my "review", though.

Alright, finally went to see this one. Before I talk about my thoughts on the movie, let me preface with the history that I have with the Transformers movies. The first Transformers movie by Michael Bay is my favorite movie of all time and it changed my life forever by inspiring me to become a filmmaker myself, a goal I have been working on ever since and I have worked on many personal and professional projects since then. Seeing that movie in the cinema for the first time was an experience I will never forget, it was the first movie that really showed me the value that movies as art can have. I think its an expressive and artful masterpiece - in general I think theres a truly nuanced artistry to Michael Bays work that far to few people are capable of appreciating. The second one I think is a very flawed but overall good movie with some standout qualities. The third one is great. The fourth one is alright and the fifth one unfortunately is one of the worst movies Ive ever seen and nobody is more unhappy about that then me. Nonetheless, that we can have a blockbuster titled "Bumblebee" in 2019 that is capable of holding its own at the box office is a testament to the formidable movie franchise Michael Bay and his team created here and how these movies (especially the first three) really managed to connect with audiences. With that out of the way, onto "Bumblebee". From back when the first trailer dropped for this movie, I was curious to see how a different director would approach a Transformers movies that follows in the footsteps of Bays work. Overall, I think its pretty decent with some really good stuff in it, but unfortunately it also has quite alot of flaws. The movie opens up very strong with some pretty good action sequences. As seen in the trailers, parts of this movie takes place on Cybertron. These scenes are also the best thing about "Bumblebee". The thing with this movie is, it almost feels like two different halves that dont quite fit well together. You have the stuff on Cybertron thats leaning more towards G1 and its genuinly different from the things we saw in Bays movies while still paying homage to his work here and there. That stuff is really good, I really like the G1 designs in this film. The G1 inspired stuff in this movie feels like its own vision that is capable of standing on its own. And then you have the stuff on earth, which honestly feels like a worse version of things we have already seen in the first Michael Bay Transformers movie. Its funny how Bumblebee´s design in this film is a perfect example of this. He looks alot like in the Bay movies, just worse and less inspired. And thats how alot of the things that happen on Earth in this film feel like, it feels like if a less creative and inspired team worked on the first Transformers film. We have already seen the story of the teenager that gets his/hers first car that happens to be Bumblebee in the first Transformers movie, but there it was done significantly better, because in the first Transformers movie that plot was woven in neatly with the greater overall narrative of the movie and just in general executed better with better directing, cinematography and actors. We have already seen Bumblebee getting captured by the military. We have already seen the teenager trying to keep the secret from everyone. This was all covered in the first 40 minutes of the first Transformers movie. The main problem with this plot is just how generic it feels. In the first Transformers movie, this wasnt the case because of what they decided to focus on, but in this movie the human element and the overarching plot is as generic as it gets. It literally feels like your generic "teenager/kid meets extraordinary creature and they bond" story that has been done a million times and this movie just has nothing to add to the formula. It also doesnt help that the cinematography and directing in this movie is also as generic as it gets, even if they are some good shots here and there. The incredible score from Steven Jablonsky from the Michael Bay movies gets replaced here with really incredibly forgettable tunes - for the most part. There are some really nice more electronic score elements in this movie that go very well with some of their G1 stuff. There are also some callbacks to the themes from the Michael Bay movies and everytime those get used it works really well, so good job on that. The CGI and sound design in this movie is also significantly worse than what we have seen in the Bay movies. The two villan decepticons in this movie are also another good example of what I mean: Their designs look like rejected designs from the Bay movies. They look like designs from the Bay movies, just less inspired and worse. Which is a shame, because the fighter jet in the beginning actually has a really good design and again, the G1 stuff is excellent. And this is a shame, because when the movie does its own thing and pulls further away from what came before in the Bay films and goes more into G1 territory, thats when the movie comes into its own. I think we would have been better off if this movie would have been a full reboot that goes all-out on the G1 stuff. Ive also read on the internet that apparently this movie was made with more "heart" than the Michael Bay films. To those people I say, you are full of shit and you should feel bad for judging the hard work of an artist and his team based on shallow superstitions you read on the internet. Michael Bay is an incredibly passionate filmmaker that puts his heart and soul into his craft and everyone who has ever worked with the guy will tell you as much. Quick example, the guy took a 40% cut to his paycheck on the first Transformers movie just so he could work with his long-time team. The Transformers movies by him are not some assembly line productions and I advise you to look up some of the making-of material regarding them. Each one of these movies were enourmous undertakings, both artistically and from a technical standpoint. New technologies were created for each one and existing technologies pushed to their limits and the artists that worked on these movies, for example CGI and the sound designers, pushed their abilities with each entry. Which is why the first three movies were nominated for 7 oscars in total. While Marvel had actors playing pretend infront of a greenscreen, Michael Bay and his team split a bus at 80 miles per hour, flipped actual cars into actual buildings and build an entire town in the desert just so they have something that they can blow up with actual explosives. And they build that town twice! A movie doesnt have "heart" because it caters to G1 fans or something. Michael Bay cares about the Transformers franchise and he listened to fans where it actually mattered (for example, casting Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime), but he wasnt interested in making a G1 adapation, he was interested in making Transformers movies that stand on their own with their own artistic integrity. Another thing: There seems to be this notion going around in some of the "critics" reviews that this movie is more "nuanced" then the Michael Bay films. That is just completely wrong. As a filmmaker myself, I like to think that I have a more nuanced opinion on movies as art than the common movie-goer and I can tell you there is nothing subtle or nuanced about this movie. Everything is laid out infront of you to make sure everyone can understand it without thinking. And if critics think that an incredibly generic human plotline that we have seen in the same manner a hundred times over counts as nuanced or subtle, then I would say the artful cinematography in the Michael Bay films that connects the audience emotionally much more with whats going on adds more subtlety and nuance to a film than a generic drama plotline. I felt like it was worth adressing these points with all the senseless vitrol on the internet that gets directed at Michael Bay and his work and to dispel some of these myths. In any case, its a decent movie, definitely better than the fifth entry in the franchise, but it would have been better off if it would have been a full reboot that focuses on the new vision of a more G1 inspired Transformers. The rest of the movie just made me appreciate the first Michael Bay Transformers movie even more and how it wasnt a painfully generic "teenager meets extraordinary creature tale" that we were presented with here.

What a brutal takedown.

This stuff is exactly what I mean. Having that scene included in the movie would have made the movie worse, it completely breaks the flow of that part of the movie and doesnt add anything substantial enough to justify it. You can be sure that for most of these scenes that did not make the cut, the situation is similar, theres a very good reason Cameron left them out. They are not "deleted scenes" in the sense that they are missing from the movie. Instead, the absence of these scenes is one of the aspects that form Avatar into the movie that it is. As for what cut I think is best, the extended edition has alot of really interesting scenes in it and some of them I feel like do have an important place in the movie, but overall I think the theatrical cut is the best version of the film. To me, it feels like thats the version of the film that accomplishes what its sets out to do best. I especially dislike that the extended edition starts on earth, I think the way the theatrical cut starts is perfect and sets up the rest of the film much better, aswell as it beeing one of my favorite scenes in the movie overall.

Wow that trailer didnt impress me at all. The cinematography, staging as well as costume and make-up effects look really cheap and terrible from a first glance, almost like its a fan-made movie. I didnt like the other Hellboy movies all that much either, but atleast they were quality productions and Ron Perlman was great.

You have seen a fully realized version of Avatar. Its the movie you saw in the cinemas. More material doesnt mean better. If a director left that material out, its often times for the betterment of the movie, thats why editing is just an important part in the process of creating a movie. As for runtime, I expect it to be alittle longer than the first one.

Will Smith as the genie looks precious, even without CGI. I look forward to his performance, I hope he knocks it out of the park. Outside of that, Im not convinced by what we have seen so far, which to be fair, is very little.

Im still not 100% convinced Quaritch will be the villain in all of the Avatar sequels, atleast not in the way everyone is expecting.

You are exactly right. Its a narrowed down list of movies that will be considered more closely for an exceptional achievement in VFX, and Black Panther shouldnt be anywhere near a list like that. Black Panthers VFX are not even mediocre, they are straight up terrible and most definitely nowhere near exceptional. Every run-of-the-mill blockbuster released this year has better VFX than Black Panther.

While I agree that Transformers by Michael Bay definitely should have won best VFX oscar that year as it was a game changer, the VFX oscar isnt decided by the VFX branch. All people that are a member of the Academy, which are many thousand people, vote on EVERY oscar category. You can be sure that most voters dont really think too hard about most of the more specific categories, outside of actor, actress, best picture and best director. Decisions like that arent the result of many sleepless nights of consideration from members in the Academy, in actuality very little thought goes into an oscar win like that.

I stand behind every single one of those statements.

Peter Jackson is a legend. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece and some of the finest movies in the history of film. You cant top something like that. His other work is all solid too and that the Hobbit movies were mostly misses is not his fault, those movies were horribly mismanaged from the studio side of things and that in the end a movie as good as Desolation of Smaug still ended up coming out of that shows how talented and dedicated Jackson is.

Assuming that I havent watched alot of movies because I appreciate Avatar is patronizing and disrespectful and I wont have you or anyone else tell me it isnt. And dont worry, I understood your request and I will follow it. I just wish this kind of proactive enforcement promoting acceptance would be seen on this board in other threads and other situations aswell, it would surely result in alot more fruitful discussion taking place.

Thats why I said "in certain elements". And of course you are right when you say its not directly comparable. However, with that said, the Transformers in Transformers 1 and 3 look more photorealistic than anything in Avatar, they are an incredible accomplishment of CGI design. Its not a fair comparison seeing how they are two very different types of movies, but its still the case. Its especially notable when comparing something like an Avatar mech to Optimus Prime, there is a gap in quality there.

I havent seen Valerian or Mortal Engines yet (though Im planning to), but knowing the behavior of the GA, a movie like that flopping doesnt have to come down to quality. Alot of people on this board and the GA today (and I guess most of the people on this board belong to the GA) display a great inability to appreciate movies that do not fall into a very limited niche. As soon as a movie is interested in beeing a worthwhile piece of art and tell their stories in more expressive and artful ways, it seems like most audience members of today are completely incapable of understanding and reading that movie, leading them to dislike it and call it "bad™". In an environment like that, its very hard for movies who aspire to be anything more than generic to succeed. Now I cant say if this also applies to these two cases, but if you are complaining about not enough original movies succeeding, the fault probably lies in part with you and how you define "quality".

There are movies out there now that have better CGI than Avatar, but Infinity War isnt one of them. Marvel movies for the most part have all pretty mediocre technical qualifications and this is true for the CGI aswell. Thanos is well realized in Infinity War, but otherwise the CGI in Infinity War ranges from mediocre to downright bad, its not even close to the grandness and level of complexity that Avatar has. Especially taking into consideration just how massive the amout of CGI is that Avatar actually uses, even compared to most films today. There are certain movies that have surpassed Avatar in certain elements when it comes to VFX (the first 3 Transformers movies, Godzilla 2014, probably TFA, havent seen the Apes movies), but whats still unprecedented is the level of commitment to CGI that Avatar has to build its world and story.

I do respect other people´s opinions, but Im antagonistic towards people who mock and patronize other people for liking movies they dislike, which is behavior thats extremly common here and on other boards aswell. Thats just bullying and surely that behavior isnt okay either? Afterall you cant expect someone to not be antagonistic towards people who have no problem with questioning your intelligence just because they have a different opinion on movies. Its all about execution and quality. Exploring the deep has been one of Camerons passions for a long time, Aquaman wont hold a candle to the amout of accuracy and quality James Cameron will be able to bring to the table here.

Yep, thats about the reply I expected from you. If you cant be bothered to think about something, stop talking about it.

Im not saying they are wrong to change their opinion. Im saying they are wrong because they are wrong. And so are you. First of all, you assume that I like Avatar just because of the setting/themes/presentation. You also insinuate that Ive not seen alot of movies. I love movies as art and understanding movies as an art form is one of the most central aspects of my life. I finished my first full-length animated film when I was 20. I used to make a large part of my income from work related to movies or using skills Ive acquired while making movies. That gives me a much better understanding of movies as art and makes me more qualified to talk about the topic than casual movie goers. Just like someone that creates software for a living is more qualified to talk about the nuances of programming and what makes good software compared to the layman. Yes, everyone can like what they want. What movies you like and dislike is subjective. But what a movie is and how it is crafted is for the largest part objective. Art and movies, like most things in the world, are not as subjective as people assume, infact what goes into art is often times quite objective. When a movie deals with certain themes or achieves certain qualities, that is objective. If you are then entertained by that is subjective, but either way it does not give a viewer the right to dismiss the objective qualities a film has. First of all, Avatars story is not conventional nor traditional. You say people like Avatar for the "setting/themes/presentation", but not for the story. That doesnt make any sense, because "setting/themes/presentation" ARE story. Every element in a well crafted movie should come together to tell its story. Plot is just another tool a filmmaker can use to tell a great story. So are characters. Not every movie needs incredible CGI animation or sound design to tell a great story. In the same way, not every movie needs an intricate plot or super original characters to tell a great story. Infact, most of the time, if a filmmaker uses elements like cinematography, music, acting and directing to its fullest to tell his vision (his story), the end result is often times more artistically worthwhile and expressive than movies from filmmakers who are not as good at using all the tools they have at their disposal. There are many incredible films that focus exactly on the things that make movies unique as an art form (cinematography, music, directing, acting, among others) and not the plot itself to tell the largest part of their story. And often times this results in movies that are far better at conveying what they strive towards. However, it also comes with the "downside" that movies like this are far harder to understand and read for the layman. Because in order to understand a movie that conveys its themes and its intellectual complexity through the tools Ive mentioned previously, it requires the viewer to not only pay much more attention to these elements and also see the movie in the right technical setup, like a cinema (Afterall, watching a movie that heavily depends on great cinematography or sound design to convey its thematic complexity on a bad monitor with crappy headphones is like reading a book with half the pages missing), but it also requires the viewer to have the affinity and perhaps even knowledge to properly interpret these elements. And many casual movie goers do not. They cannot understand these movies and they dont even know it. Thats what I call artistic challenge. To give you a very basic example: A movie can tell most of its story through its cinematography, which will require the viewer to pay ALOT of attention to the cinematography in order for the viewer to understand the movie. Just like if a movie has a complex plot, the viewer has to pay alot of attention to the plot to understand it. Both movies would have the same amout of intellectual worth and complexity, just conveyed in different ways. If the viewer then fails to understand the plot because he didnt pay enough attention, then thats a failing of the viewer, making his opinion quite worthless when it comes to critizing the movie. Likewise, if the viewer didnt pay enough attention to the visuals in a movie that relies heavily on cinematography and then doesnt understand that movie, again, thats the fault of the viewer, not the movie. A movie like Avatar is challenging on an artistic level. And many viewers are not capable of properly understanding movies that are challening on an artistic level, because they simply dont know what to look for. They dont understand the story of Avatar because they are not capable of reading elements like the movies artistic directing. And if you dont understand a movie, your opinion on it is wrong, no matter if you subjectively enjoyed the movie or not. And thats fine, I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people like you that go around making a statement like "If you dig AVATAR (and I do), it's because the setting/themes/presentation trump the very traditional, conventional story." without understanding that there are people who do care and know much more about movies than yourself (judging you just from this one post you made, I dont actually know you in real-life so I cannot say what you are capable of) and who, quite frankly, are better at understanding the movie than you are. Keep the typos, I wrote this in a hurry.

Consider that Avatar is a much more thematically complex film than you are able to discern on a first viewing and that you are not a god of media literacy that is able to immediately understand the many thematic elements that James Cameron put into his masterpiece. That you follow the trend of saying the movie is just like Dance with the Wolves or Pocahontas very clearly tells me how shallow your opinion is. Its one of these things that people say because they sound clever but arent actually clever. The movie deals with various different themes and once you understand the more nuanced writing in the movie, you will come to realize that Avatar only resembles movies like Pocahontas on a very superficial level. They do not have the same thematic core at all. If you arent willing to put the time into properly understanding a piece of art before finalizing your opinion on it, thats your own business. But if you do that, like with all things in life, you have to accept that your opinion is automatically worth less than the people that do look at art more closely. Im not trying to attack you, but asking you to extend your perspective abit. On another note: Unfortunately you will never be able to experience it, but when it comes to grandness and movies as a spectacle, there probably never was a movie in the history of film that benefited more from seeing it in the cinema than Avatar. The way the movie managed to immediately pull the audience in, from the very first second and immerse them throughout the entire experience was unprecedented. It felt less like a movie and more like you just went on an awe-inspiring road trip, Ive never experienced a movie that evoked such an atmosphere, neither before nor since. When you walked out of the cinema, it felt like you were away "somewhere", not that you just watched a movie.

No Im not, Im not married to Avatar. But you cant deny that a statement like in your post I initially responded to is devoid of any valuable thought.