great article brad…i agree 100%

the point you raised that i really liked was the one about how they were going to put the same effort to make the third movie…because we were okay with the second one being the way it is…..

and also, the one about the screenwriters….i believe a director can have an immense amount of control over the story….we always talk about character development but Bay should have atklast thought more about developing a better story…

Good article. What you describe is corporate thinking in a nutshell: big spending hoping for people in droves. The big studios control movie traffic in cinemas. What they offer is the only thing available. They simply say: accept this becasue this is as good as it gets. Paramount made is piece of crap: Transformers, which is all about numbers, counting and accounting. Thirty years ago they accidentally made a masterpiece when Coppola took an average novel and made into a cinematic pearl: The Godfather. The studio did not expect a good film and certainly not big money from it, which it got. The Godfather is still to this day nr. 21 on the all time box office list (The Dark Knight from last year is nr. 27). What happened? Paramount wanted more big money movies from Coppola but he wanted to make a personal film, which he made but Paramount said: it won´t make any money. Coppola made The Conversation but Paramount did not make any room for it in cinemas. And they were right: The Conversation made no money. The studios can´t loose at their on game. People should shun the expensive crap (remember Independence Day anyone?) and instead support movies like Public Enemies, The Hangover, The Hurt Locker, and yes Tetro.

One more thing: the ungodly success of movies like The Transformers only makes studios more determined to continue with mindless mayhem of this kind. And last but not least: shame on Steven Spielberg to take part in this enormous cheat. He´s a director I used to admire (Jaws, Close Encounters, ET). Those movies stay the same but he´s changed; now he´s nothing more than corporate cushion, counting millions of $ wherever he looks. He´s the driving force behind the studio machine, he´s the human face of it all. How could this wonderboy turn into a corporate monster?

I agree 100% with this article. The lack of good movies coming out this summer has kept me away from the cinema by and large this year.

You can have a fun popcorn muncher of a film and still be a quality overall film. I'll use Iron Man as an example. Yeah, it's about a guy who has a mini-reactor in his chest and flies around in a suit he designed and built…but due to some great casting and a solid script it aimed to be a better movie than it's premise. Iron Man could have very easily slipped into Transformers territory but it didn't.

The "People want to see giant robots beating the heck out of each other" argument rings hollow. You can have your summer blockbuster movie cake and eat to too. Admitting your movie has a dumb premise up front is no excuse for poor film making.

Good article, except, you have to take all things into consideration about Revenge of the Fallen. I liked the film quite a lot to see it four times only because I think its entertaining as hell and I just love the balls out style of Bay. But, in no way is it a good film. It has massive problems, but I'm off the opinion that the parts, the moments, are a lot better than the actual film.

As to my point, you bring up the writers for this film were the same writers on Star Trek. Difference? Time. Remember, Star Trek was suppose to be released in the winter of 2008 and the film had been in script and pre-preduction early in 2006. With Revenge of the Fallen and Paramounts slated 2009 release date merely four weeks after the first film debuted in 2007, Bay had literally no time. You don't do a rough outline in a matter of days, have your direct do pre-production/production while the Writer's Strike goes on and then have your writers get on board to throw out a script in four weeks and then have them piece it together on set with a director like Michael Bay.

The problem with Revenge of the Fallen is time. Bay simply didn't have enough. And given all that, I commend him a bit for what he and ILM were able to accomplish. ILM had the same amount of time to do the visual effects for this film than the last film and had three times the work. And yet, the film is about 85% seamless.

Not saying this article isn't correct about wanting more from out summer blockbuster, especially in the wake of The Dark Knight, but I think Revenge of the Fallen is simply a special case of not having enough time and yet trying to accomplish and give the audience more.

Fantastic article Brad. I think we as an audience (critics included) have the right to demand more than simply mindless action & crap humor from a movie that costs over $300m (which is exactly what Transformers 2 was).

That being said, I can see why it made so much money i.e was 'rewarded'. It's not really because so many people liked it (say what you want about IMDB, but it clearly reflects that many people didnt enjoy it); it was a given that many people would see it at least once, and then there were people out there who said it's not a good movie but has good effects, so that added the audience who just wants to see action (they're not fans of the franchise). Moreover, there are fanboys who are gonna go see a crap movie multiple times because to them their beloved franchise can do no wrong. Also since it's a PG 13 movie, we're gonna have a ton of kids who wanna see it because lets face it robots and explosions will attract most kids, and then their parents get dragged in too.

So as far as rewarding a bad big budget movie goes, it really can go either way. But this one was always going to make big bucks due to Robots, secial effects, action, and a gorgeous entity called Megan Fox; which all equals a whole lot of people who wanna see what all this shit is about ( ahan 'shit').

Amazing article, Brad. I think you hit the nail right on the head. It is a big problem, when Transformers 2 ends up making 10 times more than, oh, let's say Milk, in it's first twelve days. These big, dumb action movies that we watch are rotting our brain… we deserve a movie that at least tried to be good.

I find it hard to believe that audiences who were ENTERTAINED by The Dark Knight last year could say that Transformers 2 is good "because it's just entertainment". :-/

Don't we (or they) ever learn?

People just separate entertainment and quality storytelling as they can't be part of the same equation. Why the hell do these people even bother going to the movies anyway? Just stay at home and play Halo 3 for 2 and a half hours and you got the same deal…

It's actually easy to remember of good, entertaining quality movies in recent history. The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Iron Man, Star Trek, Casino Royale, the Bourne movies, the Harry Potter series or The Lord of the Rings trilogy. None of these movies were meant to win any award (and back in early 2001, did anyone ever thought Lord of the Rings actually would?), but they were GOOD. And guess what, GOOD ENTERTAINMENT.

What a miracle! :-/

I think people who try to defend sh*t like Transformers for being "dumb fun" (I'm quoting Michael Bay here) should remember that the emphasis oughta be on FUN, not on DUMB.

One of the big problems in reversing the trend of the "bad" blockbuster is that there never really is a clear message an audience can send… there's always a desire by analysts to read whatever message they want into the results. Had Iron Man or Star Trek been made poorly and flopped at the box office as a result, people in Hollywood would have said "obviously those aren't viable properties… Iron Man is too obscure a character, and Star Trek's time is past and beyond reviving."

I thought the first Transformers was a horrible movie and so there is no way I'm spending money on this one. But the money I spent on that last one finding out it was horrible helped send the message to make this one a more ramped-up version of the same thing. And I wouldn't mind sending the message that I'd kind of like to see giant robots fighting each other done well… I just don't know how to actually do that.

It gets even more muddled when you're talking sequels. Is money spent on the second movie an endorsement of its quality, or of the movie before it? If the next Indiana Jones movie is actually very good, but does considerably less business because people remember the quality of the last one, what message does Hollywood take out of that?

Um, Transformers 2 is supposed to win some Oscars! I thought the film was crap but if it didn't win the Visual Effects Oscar I'd be pissed. The only way it wouldn't get it if the Golden Compass 2 was being released.

First, thanks for including my quote from the boards, that's pretty cool lol I still stand by it.

You make some good arguments, one of which is if they are going to spend all that money on the movie, they can make the effort to produce something with a little mroe substance. I completely agree, and even though I enjoyed Transformers 2 very much, it is true that the story was weak and the characters are bland.

But Transformers 2 (and I'm only talking about Transformers 2) is a movie about talking robots from space who transform into cars. Now, I'm all for a quality story, but look at the premise and the origins from the cartoon… how can you make this specific film more enjoyable, more serious, more entertaining? I'm speaking only for Transformers 2 here. Take the content and what that movie is about, and turn it into something that has more substance or quality? Come on, let's not play critic here and let's all admit that not one person who saw Transformers 1 or 2 went in there expecting or even wanting 1)grand character development and 2) a deep story. Come on. Seriously. No one has to like the second movie, but don't start talking about things you didn't even see in the first movie, especially if you weren't a fan to begin with. I mean, whether they spend 10$ or 350 million$, everyone knows what to expect from Transformers 2. We can't deny that.

Brad, I know you enjoyed "Fired Up" when you reviewed it. I found it was cheesy and a generic teen movie that went for cheap laughs with gratuitous female shots and gay jokes. Quality in this movie? None. But you enjoyed it, you had a good time. You didn't go in there expecting much, you even said it yourself. So, if that rule can pass for a movie like "Fired Up", why does Transformers 2 get the heat? So what if it cost 350 million $, this movie would have been blasted by critics if it was made for 20 million $, like "Fired Up". And it's true, Transformers 1 didn't get great reviews, expectations weren't exactly high for the second one.

The point is, there is no right or wrong answer in this topic lol We're all arguing on these boards till our faces turn blue over opinions and tastes. I believe my 10$ was well spent on Transformers 2 because I came out of the theater entertained. I enjoyed myself. Your 10$ was spent on "Fired Up" and you thought it was ok. Does that make you and me right or wrong? Not at all. I have agreed with many of your points on movies, I have disagreed on some.

We can't expect The Dark Knight for every single comic/cartoon or any adaptation for that matter, just like we can't expect The Godfather for every mafia movie or The Hangover for every comedy.

I think we just need to stop over analyzing. You like it, fine. You don't, no problem. There are some movies that have fantastic scripts. But when we start picking over plot in Transformers 2…I think we're taking not just the movie, but ourselves as well, a little too seriously.

@Roger

I don't think anyone who disliked Transformers 2 is taking it too seriously. Or any good blockbuster, for that matter. Sure we can all sit down and have very serious conversations about movies like The Dark Knight or even The Lord of the Rings. But that's not why we loved them, we loved because, aside from being meaningful movies, they were also so fun to watch!

And that's the reason we also love Iron Man or Star Trek. Really… Did anyone actually enjoyed those movies because of their story? I doubt that.

The problem with Transformers 2 is not JUST that it's story is god-awful. It's actually an offensive movie (racist and misogenist) with terrible dialogs, disastrous performances and it's directed by Michael Bay – let's face, the guy can't keep a camera steady for over than a second before spinning it around and showing us the bealtiful sunset (countless sunsets in every single movie he makes!!).

I won't say "you can't have fun with this movie, it's wrong", but do you really enjoy a movie that does everything badly? It's like saying "I like this novel, it's so poorly written and the storyline makes no sense at all" or "this game is great fun, the gameplay is awful and the level design is boring, I love it!".

@Leandro Dubost:

Well no, cuz we both found different faults to the movie. What bothered you didn't bother me you know? Doesn't make us wrong, we just viewed it differently. I love reading John Grisham, some people find him boring. I'm not a fan of Halo 3, some people adore it. It's all a question on how you can enjoy it right?

And honestly, Michael Bay didn't do THAT bad. I find the fighting was more clear than the first movie. I really think that guy gets a lot more hate than he deserves, but that's a different topic lol

Great article, Brad. I know just what you're talking about, it gets on my nerves too. And I would just like to say up front that I have not seen Transformers. I didn't give in.

With all the resources they had on that film, you think one person could speak up and say just how stupid it all looked.

In terms of people who have seen the movie, I don't know a lot of people who have enjoyed. I don't think it's about them liking the movie, it's just about how they go to the movie.
Just because this movie grossed so much at the box office, I don't think it necessarily means the same percentage of people enjoyed it as the percentage of people who enjoyed a good blockbuster like The Dark Knight or Star Trek. If you hype up a movie enough, people will go see it.

@Roger: I walked into both Transformers movie expecting a better translation of the Transformers universe than what was presented. I did so for two reason: twenty plus years of source material that is rich in both character development and story, and Steven Spielberg's claims that he was a fan and wanted to build a franchise that would do the source justice.

Example, there is a Beast Wars (Beasties) episode titled 'Code of Hero', you should check it out. Or maybe avoid it if you're content to think of Transformers as nothing more than a toy line turned cartoon of mindless robot fighting.

@Roger: I actually agree with this comment, go figure.

I just hope this sequel trend works to Star Trek's advantage. If the sequel is as good as the original and does not beat the shit out of Transformers 2 at the Box Office, I will be very disappointed with mankind.

I was so happy that a movie that challenged audiences such as The Dark Knight had achieved the success it did but now I see that boobs and explosions will get the same result.

It's depressing, really.

Great article Brad!
I just think that the answer to all this is "Just Entertainment". It can't be more truth that Transformers 2 is real bad movie. Just that as some say, Michael Bay didn't want this to be a Oscar movie. His goal with this movie is just to cause entertainment by blowing things every two seconds. And when I start thinking, not everybody is like us, people who know about movies, people who won't give a 10/10 to Transformers just because it is "entertaining". There are persons who just go to movies that are "cool", with this I say movies like Transformers, Terminator Salvation, X-Men Origins. Those movies just explode things and have bad dialogue. THAT'S ALL. They don't leave you with absolutely ANYTHING.

Now tell me why people preferred to see 17 again from seeing the good reviewed State of Play? Or go watch He's just not that into you instead of seeing Coraline? Just because they are movies that attract people who goes to the movies without even knowing what they're going to see, they just see what's playing and they pick the one that looks more cool. The boys are going to pick Transformers and the girls He's Just Not That Into You. Why did The Dark Knight make some much money? Because this are movies that incorporated two elements that make everybody go to see this movie. The action (for the people who just wanna see an entertaining movie) and character development (for the people who can differ a good film from a mindless action film, a.k.a Transformers 2)

Star Trek and Iron Man are two good examples of this. They both made a lot of money. They didn't make it as high as The Dark Knight just because they didn't have as much marketing and fan boys as The Dark Knight.

My final point is, no everybody knows how to explain the difference between movie like Transformers 2 and The Dark Knight. They even say that is the same type of movie! Things blowing out! Well, it isn't.

This is an excellent article, I wholeheartedly agree.

This is my experience with Transformers 2. I am one of those people who like artsy-fartsy, high-end, character driven movies. My fiancee likes the action and blowing up of bombs, hot girls and cars. Not my type of show. But you would think this movie was right down his alley, right? Wrong. We got out of theater and even he was disappointed. He hated the "twins," saying he was offended by the blatant racial undertones. He thought the humping dogs were stupid. He wondered why Megan Fox didn't put her little foot down and demand some more respect for herself–especially when the robot humps her leg. He thought that it was ridiculous that this film is no longer marketable for kids–all the bad language and sexuality is horrid. In other words, this movie has failed on so many levels. If the film makers do not take the time (or do not have the time, as Cory pointed out) to step back and look at the overall big picture, perhaps they should not release the film. Otherwise, you get messes like this one. It would have been better as a straight-to-video release.

It's a whole lot easier to throw stuff into a blender or microwave and serve immediately, than to actually spend some time on a carefully prepared and substantial meal.

I didn't follow the transformers cartoon, so my only introduction to this series was the 2 live action films. I left transformers 2 asking my friends who saw it with me (all of whom are avid fans of the cartoon series) if the source material was as messy, convoluted, and devoid of any endearing characters and a modicum of emotion. My friend loaned me a copy of the 1986 animated movie. While the visuals were severely dated, I found that movie to be far better than both live action films. It is just a much better film storywise with characters that you actually feel for and remember afterwards. Obviously, the makers of that film spent as much-probably more-time in crafting a solid story with compelling characters. The live action films spent more time in visuals that were both great and often times messy, at the expense of well-rounded characters and story.

I agree with all of this brad i like how your defending your thoughts on T2 and other movies. If a company is going to spend crap loads of $$$ on a moive and it only turns out half decent then what the hell was the point in releasing it anyway. To me it seems like the moives that dont cost that much are the ones that stand out in the end as the greater films. Yea transformers will get a mention or at least some involvment in the Oscars ( sadly) but they do it because it made money. T2 was entertaining i have to say that but story line , characters …. they could have done a little better on those subjects. I hardly believe audiences were expecting a walle-esque character to be humping megan fox's leg i mean common thats just stupid

wow spot on brad, one of the best ive seen from you, the point people dont understand is theres always room for improvement, they often criticize micheal bay saying hes always made mindless action movies what do you expect ? i say to these people, as a kid you are taught to learn from you mistakes and get better, not keep going in cirles like a retarded person, micheal bay and MCG are such retarded people who've given this immense power from these movie studios, and they dont know how to intelligently use this power. you cant compare them to guys like nolan, cameron, or abrams, they are leap years ahead of them.

Excellent article. Just saw Hangover and UP again over the weekend, and I'll be among those who will support films like those whether through multiple viewings in theaters and buying the blu-ray dvds. I did watch Transformers 2 once but that's going to be the last I ever see it.

@ddurden33:

But they aim to make different kind of movies too no? Comparing Nolan and Bay is comparing apples and oranges. Yeah, both are fruits but not everyone necessarily likes both you know?
Nolan can turn Batman and make it into a smart action thriller. Bay will make a big FX-filled extravaganza. It's not that he's bad, he's actually quite good at what he does (Bad Boys II, Armageddon, Pearl Harbour) because that's what is asked and expected from him. If that's what the studio (who in the end is the one who pretty much greenlights anything Bay or any director does) asks for, then is it really Bay's fault? I mean, they hired him with those expectations. We're blaming the wrong guy here lol

Simple-minded Americans are the reason movies like Transfomers 2 do well. They ignore the advise of just about every critic in the world and pay their $10 to see it anyways. And after its over, like Brad said, they complain about it or, if you are in GA the rednecks praise its huge explosions and Megan Fox's ability to paint a motorcycle and have sex with it at the same time. Those are never reasons that make a movie good! I would rather have quality over quantity (i.e., dollar amounts next to the name). If a movie that is brilliant with characters and an excellent plot and it just happens to have a budget of over $200 million dollars then great (Star Trek). I applaud those movies! great article

@BR:

Ridiculous to correlate nationality and taste in movies…poor choice of words to get your point across.

@Roger: It's not ridiculous when it's true. but i will choose my words more carefully next time

@BR: I wouldn't say it is true considering foreign markets have already sold $307 million in tickets for Transformers 2 while domestic is $299 million. But I can understand people going and seeing Transformers 2, that's not my biggest issue. It's the fact people come out saying things like "What did you expect?" When I learn a movie was made for $350 million I actually expect quite a bit.

However, there is still a way to let studios know you want and expect more from these blockbuster movies and that is for consumers, to not buy the DVD or Blu-ray. Box-office dollars have become a way for studios to make their money back on these crappy excuse for movies while home video became where they make their profits.

As audience members expect and demand more from movies. Trust me, studios will listen once they learn you are willing to give their movies a shot in theaters, but when it doesn't measure up you aren't going to support it a second time by buying it on DVD.

@BR: Your comment simply isn't true. Domestic and foreign box office sales for Transformers 2 are about equal, which isn't an unusual split. Terminator Salvation made almost twice as much money outside of North America than it did in. The Dark Knight made more money in North America than it did out.

Forget the numbers. Isn't it more simple minded to formulate a decision based on the opinions of others, as opposed to formulating your own opinion?

There are only two reasons to make movies: to entertain and to make money. The problem is our focus is on the former, the studios tend to focus on the latter. Here's the rub. The more money Paramount makes off films like Transformers, the more money they have to spend on films like the Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

@Brad Brevet: I probably should have refreshed before posting, oh well.

@- Roger

Apples and Oranges, try like comparing a turd and a sunset.

"Transformers 2" is just one of those movies that will get terrible critical response, but the regular movie goer will love it. I went to see it last week, and I felt in the middle. I mean, some people love to go to a movie just to see hot girls, crude humor, and stuff blow up. That's how it is and that's how it will always be. People like Michael Bay are the true geniouses. They don't care about the quality of thier movie, they just know people love hot girls, crude humor, and stuff blowing up. Putting all of those together on a lager scale like T2 just makes more and more people line up. It's a tried and true formula that has worked for years. It will always work. Sometimes we get lucky with movies like any Pixar movie, "The Dark Knight" and "Star Trek" where the audience and critics both love it, but that's rare that a movie like that comes out more than once or twice a year. We can make the change by ignoring crap movies like T2 and Terminator Salvation, but we're not going to. We still want to see what Optimus Prime is up to. Most view the critics as uppity know-it-alls who only like movies with mundane plots, Kate Winslet, and The Holocaust. I tend to usually agree with the critics, but sometimes I'll see a crap movie that I really enjoy (I.E…Without a Paddle, Swing Vote). That's just life. But with movies like T2, Bay knew the movie was crap, and he released it knowing it would be a smash hit, and now he is rolling around in our money…and we have no regret about giving our hard earned cash to him. That's just how some people are. Movies like T2 will always be sucessful because of our deisre for eye candy. Maybe if the people of America go on an eye candy diet, and only eat ones like "TDK" and "Star Trek" that actually are healthy for you, the movie world would be a better place. But everybody loves eye candy. America, it's time for a diet.

@GregM: I dont agree with you about the 2 reasons people make movies. Is it too much to believe that a director or a producer sets out to make a film that will not only entertain but inspire people? I dont think so, i hope not. I have to believe that there is more to filmmaking than money and recognition. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money or have your name up in lights at all, after all, that is, somwhate, part of the American dream…rich and famous right.

I formulated my own opinion of this movie long before it even came out. I do apologize if the comment was offensive. I just find myself enjoying the company of people that dig deeper into movies, further than just hot women (nothing wrong with them either) and fast cars and explosions.

It's funny Brad, I have been thinking this for a long time now. I have been re-discovering the classics recently (Hitchcock, Carol Reed, Curtiz, Cukor etc) and what I realized is that those old great films, while being entertaining, are also works of ART. They make you think. Transformers is nowhere close to being art. And I don't buy the "it's all about the money these days" arguement. It's ALWAYS been about the money (don't think for a second that Selznick was satisfied with simply good reviews). Yet those old films, while concieved to be money makers, were also really, really good!
TDK is a great example of what that old style of film-making represented. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that thinks this.
I guess they just don't make em like they use to.

@joker47: if you ran for president, i would probably vote for you. i love your diet plan

@BR: haha, thanks, I'm against crap movies.

Excellent article, Brad. You really hit the nail on the head this time. It is so true a big summer blockbuster can be fun and entertaining AND well done: i.e. Iron Man, Star Trek, and of course Dark Knight (OK-not exactly fun, but definitely well done!). Makes you wonder what T2 would have been like had Favreau, Abrams or Nolan directed (and Downey, Bale and/or Ledger acted…sigh). I adore Steven Spielberg, but I am a bit disappointed in him right now. There is no excuse for T2, really.

I'm no marketing analyst, that's for sure, but I just wanted to make one comment about the world market total being the same as the US. I live outside the States, and people here do not (in general) have the advantage (or disadvantage!) of marketing or critics. Many do not even speak English (at least as their first language). They usually just go to the cinema and see the poster: "Oh, that's a big special effects blockbuster from the States!" and decide to see it. So the criteria for seeing a big movie is very different (at least here in Mexico). My husband and I went because of our three teenage kids–and all five of us left the theatre sadly disappointed. I can also say for the crowded theatre I was in that evening the feeling, in general, was mutual.

Keep fighting the good fight, Brad, and we will support you by supporting good films and trying when possible to shun the bad ones.

@joker47: I am right there with you.

If people keep paying for it, they will keep coming. It will take a train to virtually maim some people before they see the light and stop going to watch train wrecks.

This is a great article Brad!!! Congratulations… It really opened my eyes. "Revenge of the fallen", for me, was just a copcorn film… Grat effects… but, no history at all. And that hurts… I´m just a 16 years old boy, and my dream is to become a great director… I can´t believe that someone like Michael Bay spends 350millions on that "movie", when around the world there is a lot of good ideas, and talent, or maybe great scrips!!!… and no one to watch them…

Why would you watch a movie without wanting to be entertained?
Unless there is a really believable relationship situation (which is pretty much never), what is the point if something isn't blowing up, or some bang for your buck?
I was hoping I would not be the only person saying this, but I probably am.
Why not do a believable story with lots of action. Then Iron Man exists, or the Dark Knight, and you have an excellent movie. Do them that way…

Excellent article and very well said.

Let me just point this out; while in Transformers 2 (I paid 5$ to watch Megan Fox run around, and I fell asleep) I found the 'twin' robots extremely racist. That said, anytime one of the twins would say something, the black people in my crowd would cheer and respond back with lines like "Awww shit you tell 'em." Where I'm going is that maybe the majority of America isn't ready for good movies. Let's face it, there are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to sit through a Synecdoche, New York because it would be over their heads (not to attack anybody who didn't like Synecdoche, but do you think the T:ROTF '10' guy on IMDB would be able to sit through Phillip Seymour Hoffman tackling Jennifer Jason Leigh).

There's a difference between the intelligent film buff and the 15 year old looking for entertainment. Alexander Payne caters to the former, Bay to the latter. That said, I wish more people would be exposed to good movies and hopefully the trend of stuff like 'Tetro' flopping (relatively) and T:ROTF succeeding would stop.

@Chris C.: I find it funny that you begin your comment stating that you found the 'twin' robots racist. Then you end your comment by insinuating that anyone who enjoyed Transformers is an unintelligent 15 year old. Stereotypes are stereotypes, regardless of race or age.

A quick comment on the use of the word 'entertainment'. As Roger stated above, everyone has their own opinion of what is entertaining. If you enjoy being inspired then you might find an inspirational movie entertaining. If you like Bay style action, then you might find Transformers entertaining. To each his own.

@GregM: Actually, did I preface the 15 year old comment with the word 'unintelligent?' Nope. And actually, through box office polling and stats, its proven that the major audience for the blockbuster films are the 13-25 year old crowd. Stereotypical? I don't think so…

Websites like this attracts a lot of movie snobs, and getting angry because a bad movie is making money proves it. Just go to the movies you want to, it's a choice.

Snobs doesn't even begin to define the type of self righteous social masturbation going on with this article and the people who are joining in on the ever present "Bash Bay" bandwagon.

Are all movies suppose to be Intellectually stimulating? Is every film suppose to be a mastery of story and cinematography? Is there such thing as escapism and entertainment anymore?

I live with a guy that rides the stuck up cart to work every day like some of the jacks on here. He cant enjoy anything he watches and the things he likes that no one else does, its completely because they aren't "intelligent" enough to get it. How gracious your eyeballs must be to believe the things that you type. Bay is a bad director? Maybe you haven't heard of Ewe Boll. Bay is bad at what he does? Maybe you haven't watched enough cheesy late night flicks with great special fx done horribly and storylines that would make baby jesus cry. Hell some of those flicks make it to the big screen, but they aren't done by michael bay.

Transformers 2 is a movie made from a toy line about robots that can turn into mobile earth vehicles carrying out a war on earth. I'm sorry, but does this sound like shawshank redemption to you? It sounds like a 2 hour movie about epic fights, comic relief, and explosions that make your eyes grow wide like when you were a little kid and knew how to be amazed by super cool robot designs and brutality in any form. If you were looking for more than that, then we know your IQ off the bat.

Transformers wasn't a bad movie, it just wasn't your type. I wish more people would just say it like that. Its not a fault of society or some big conspiracy behind why transformers is making money. NO!~ its not because people are stupid. Its because its good at what people need right now in society, an uplifting tale of responsibility and standing up for whats right even if you're just the little man. Its not the most complex arrangement of the theme but it works. People are losing all hope here, and you're trying to punish them for being amazed. ALL you guys need to get a handle on yourselves and jerk one for the team. So many movies get overlooked these days, and its not Michael Bay's fault. It's JUST THE WAY OF THE WORLD. If there is something you like at all about this place, cherish it and let go of the negativity.

I'm very confused as to how people can say: "the movie was really bad, but since it was Transformers 2 and had lots of action and a big budget, I liked it." That makes no sense at all.

The question I always ask myself while watching a film is: "Was I entertained?" If the answer is "no" then I don't care what the film was intending to do or who the target audience was. I like good films. The Godfather is a masterpiece and a good film, Pirates of the Caribbean was a lotta fun & a good film, The Wizard of Oz is a masterpiece & a good film, Iron Man was a lotta fun & a good film, Bonnie & Clyde is a cinematic masterpiece and a good film………Transformers 2 was a piece of shit.

Unfortunately, today's moviegoing public is addicted to sequels, prequels, rehashes & reboots – myself included. Why? Out of loyalty to the original films & for plain ol' nostalgia. We remember what it was like to experience Star Wars for first time, so when we hear that Star Wars: Episode III is coming-to-a-theater-near-us, we all camp out at the theater & give billions of dollars to George Lucas.

Still, I see no reason why audiences shouldn't desire that their "popcorn" films be worthy of our time and money, whether it be Schindler's List or Shrek. I was actually offended by Transformers 2. I felt as if Michael Bay disrespected me as a fan of film. He thought: "hey, it doesn't matter what kind of shit I throw up on the screen, that guys gonna give me his money." – NOT if I'd known that it would almost induce vomitting.

Finally, I'm not trying to bash on big-budget summer fare – I just want it done right. James Cameron is a great example of the perfect summer director. His films have gigantic budgets, big stars (Sigourney Weaver, Awnuld, Ed Harris, Leo, Kate, etc.), big effects, fantastic (or at least intriguing) stories, great (or at least memorable) characters….and guess what? THEY ARE GOOD FILMS. They even win awards.

So, I cry fowl whenever I hear someone: "you have to accept a bad film because it has good effects and rakes in lots of money." NO. I look for entertaining, well-made films.

I agree with Steve's comment above

The movie lost 60% of it's audience opening weekend. It's bound to lose another large chunk this coming weekend. The people have spoken. It will still have enough to reach 400mil, but it will do so NOT because people thought it was good and it has great word of mouth, but because it was heavily frontloaded. Great word of mouth belongs to films like Hangover, UP, and Trek, all of whom are poised to earn 4x or more it's opening weekend gross. Transformers 2 will only make around 2x it's opening weekend gross.

Those who want bad movies like Transformers 2 are movie snobs themselves. They are just in the opposite end of the spectrum, because they don't like good movies and prefer hollow cotton-candy empty fare.

The sad thing about franchises is that any installments from number 2 onwards get a box office that doesn't so much reflect the quality of that movie, but of the movie that came before it. The only reason why TF2 is making so much money is because everyone liked the first one so much.

I promise that, if a third one gets made, it won't make as much money. Not nearly as much. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction was: "Oh, it was pretty good… okay, so the story wasn't great, but the action was." This is the same reaction we all had to the second Pirates of the Caribbean film. We loved the first one so much, and we wanted so badly for the second one to be good that we half convinced ourselves it was good, and it wasn't until a month or so later, after the movie had made its hundreds of millions, that we realized how bad it was. Of course, POTC1 was better than TF1, and ANYTHING, even the awful, awful POTC3, is better than TF2, but the precedent is similar. TF2 got its ridiculous opening weekend. Now, all we can hope for is precipitous drops. We will feel better when TF3 can't scrape $300 million domestically. After all, POTC3 ended up with $100 million less than its predecessor, and neither movie was nearly as awful as TF2.

wow 50 plus comments, great job brad!!! youve hit the right note this time, all in all just wait for a year, when the dust settles, just ask yourself, did you you like transformer 2 ? would you like to see it again and again ?

i know what i would say, the movie had some entertainment value, but was seriously flawed, and left me feeling frustrated. would i see it again ? hell no!!!

well maybe one more time on bluray, no

Some people I know genuinely enjoyed it. As in honestly thought Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a good film. I think quite a few people are pretty much apathetic towards what's quality and what's not, as long as they have some laughs and Megan Fox tank top workage, they're happy. Some may see those as low standards (I of course, do) but at the end of the day, whose to say a friend of mine can tell the difference in quality between Transformers and Star Trek? Some people won't go very deep into critiquing a film at all. If it was boring, it was "bad". If it was fun, it was "good".

A lot of people were more than satisfied with Transformers and I don't believe they would think it did not reach its potential with its budget. Critics can offer up brilliant arguments like yours Brad, but the other half who favour popcorn flicks and blockbusters over the "pretentious" kind would be bored with this article before the second paragraph. They don't care.

Wait til he reviews the blue-ray and starts re-rattling some cages… lol

I feel like this may concern movies that had tried at one time. A franchise such as Indiana Jones had used a formula that was constructive and entertaining. Something like Transformers is more than likely the bare bones of popcorn films and the franchise has nothing to lose with making sequel upon sequel of mindless flicks.

To the people who say "should every movie be intellectually stimulating?" I say good argument. You got me.

Also, I'd like to make the 100yd dash a 76yd race from here on out. And I think there should be a 6ft height MAX in the NBA. And why read books? Books are hard!

All in all, let's just settle. Screw it. Why try for anything better? We deserve whatever the studios give us. Yay!

I think the thing that gets me is that I'm now being called a movie snob and don't go to movies to be entertained because I thought Transformers 2 was a bad movie. Here's the thing, Transformers 2 is a BAD MOVIE. It's weak on character development, the writing is massively lazy, and the direction is atrocious. Here's the thing…I'm not a movie snob. I love movies, as both art and entertainment. I'm a huge fan of The Dark Knight, an intelligent, fun, dark comic book movie that had great characters, and also pretty large flaws. But the film takes time to develop its story and doesn't just throw an explosion to distract us from the lack of effort put into the script. This year, the three biggest performers before Transformers 2 came out, Up, The Hangover, and Star Trek were wonderful pieces of entertainment, that I went to, and enjoyed thoroughly. They had smart scripts and rose above the flaws since at no time did I feel like it was lazy filmmaking. Even Michael Bay has made some great films. I love The Rock, as well as the majority of Armaggeddon. But this movie is, as The Jackal said, an insult to me. I'm mostly angry because my dislike for this movie has labeled me as some sort of elitist. I'm not. I don't think it's elitist to want movies with strong characters and doesn't delve into bad jokes and poor innuendo (a robot has balls? Is that a thought out joke?) I don't think Transformers 2 should be the touchstone for a cultural war. It's pure and simple a bad movie. You can like it. That's fine. My fiance liked the movie (we're still getting married anyway). But please don't tell me that I don't go to movies to be entertained. I do. (Full disclosure: Not a fan of Synchedoche, New York.)

The time and energy wasted here is amazing, if this much focus was put into helping the starving children of Africa… What a great civilisation we would be…

It's time to move on, your site is becoming boring, repetitive, and finaly, full of self indulgence, the very thing your complaining about!!! ;-)

It's a love it or hate it film, OK next…

@laremy:

Hey dude, I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand your comment. Are you saying ALL movies should be intellectually stimulating?
Cuz personally I don't always want to see a movie where it gets too complicated to follow, but I also don't feel any more dumber after watching something along the line of American Pie you know?

Or by intellectually stimulating do you just mean something that is logical, consistent in story development?

Not ripping on you, I just didn't quite get your point.

I don't have a problem with blockbusters either and I don't expect them to win any awards either but I expect them to be good for the type of movie they are. And there are good popcorn movies and bad ones.

It's similar with people complaining about remakes and sequels.

If you don't want those remakes, there is a very simple solution: do go and watch them. Studios are out to make money and if people stop stop showing up for those remakes, they will stop making them faster than you can count to three.

Btw, Roger Ebert also had an awesome blog article this week criticizing people who defend Transformers 2 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/i_am_a_brainiac.html). Well worth the read.

To Laremy, who probably thinks he's witty. I see that you want to be extra thick like the rest of the people on here. When i say, should all movies be intellectually stimulating, What i am in turn saying is, "Should all movies be as complex as Memento or many other great films?" Under the terms that have been laid down here, All comedies would be out (No one needs to laugh, just think alot), Most Drama's would be out (because upstarts who have a good idea and are doing the studio movie to up their ante, dont need to establish a career). I'm not saying dumb movies down, I'm saying that the market is big enough for Genre movies to exist and that there is a big difference between a bay movie and someone who is truly bad at the art of film(i.e. ewe boll). A movie based completely around the Transformers would take a budget somewhere around 300 million + dollars. Better script, more development time for plot, locations fictional and non fictional, and then put tons of big ass robots in it constantly. TO which, some smart ass will say. If you can't make it right, dont make it. How about you make it "wrong" with 100 million dollars and make 500 million in the box office. All the money these "silly" movies make ensure that the next installment will have more possibilities because people will put more money up for it or put more money on the next directors venture. You want extended intellectual dialogue between the robots, or robots and the U.S. government, to create a great premise beyond the original concept or shock and awe movie making venture? Get into filmmaking and do it yourself, and find out for yourself what it takes. Its TRANSFORMERS! How intellectually stimulating were you expecting it to be? Not everything is meant to be philosophically mind blowing. There are great ideas and there are good ideas. If someone offers you good, dont hold it against them for giving you a good idea and not a great one. Also, the same people on here saying "nothing against transformers 1" are the same people that bitched about one when it came out as well. Dont pay for the movies if you dont want to see them. Transformers was meant to be flat out entertaining, and if you weren't entertained then you have no pulse and should have spent your time watching another flat chested romantic comedy with some tired bimbo trying to prove she has range. Spend money on what gets you off. Love it, or hate it like Malcom said. Move on~

But you know, maybe we can all just agree with Brad, yay i know his name now maybe i can name drop and get some kudos.

@The_Strongest_There_Is: Ah, yes, the if you don't like it, do it yourself argument. Funny how it only seems to work with movies. "You don't like how I took out your gall bladder, well, then become a doctor and do it yourself." "Don't like how the mechanic fixed your car, well, do it yourself." It doesn't work, since we pay to have people make these movies to be seen. And I don't think we are asking for much. Silly blockbuster entertainment can have quality writing (Back to the Future, anyone?) What we have here is the dumbing down of America. Look at the first part of your argument toward "intellectually stimulating." "All comedies would be out (No one needs to laugh, just think a lot)." I have a quick list of films that go against that: Dr. Strangelove, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Thank You For Smoking, Annie Hall, Trading Places, Groundhog Day. All "smart" comedies and all very funny. I have more, but it stinks that you don't see more of the intellectual comedy like you saw in the sixties and seventies and early eighties. So, we wouldn't lose comedy for sure. Well, as for dramas, back in the seventies, upstarts like Coppola and Scorcese started their studio careers with The Godfather (a movie I would think wouldn't be a huge box office hit nowadays) and Mean Streets. Smart dramas that hit on intellectual and emotional levels. I think all your argument is saying is that we as a whole don't care about quality anymore. The blockbuster has degenerated from the days of Jaws, Ghostbusters, even Star Wars. All are examples of skilled directing, smart writing (maybe not so much for Star Wars) and using the WOW factor. We were moving in the right direction with blockbusters like The Dark Knight, Wall-E, and Iron Man. Heck, I would've liked Transformers 2 if perhaps these quality blockbusters hadn't come out. But I know we're better than this.

Also, I would like to move on, so I hope that Rope of Silicon will start to move toward become a Feed the Children website. Though I will still post my objections to the popularity of Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakel on it.

And no, Transformers 2 was not meant to be flat out entertaining. It was meant to get your money. Believe me, if it was meant to be flat out entertaining, they would've spent more time on the script.

And we, the movie snobs as we are now called, do have the right to complain about films that we don't find entertaining, because if our voice isn't heard then how can we make change? Brad, I'll name drop, I get it. I think.

@Roger: No, I'm not saying I need to learn something every time out. But having SOME sort of logic isn't a bizarre request. If you start a scene in the Smithsonian… and you walk outside… and it's the desert, something has gone wrong. If Shia's hand gets miraculously bandaged, something has gone wrong.

It's the different between respecting your audiences time and money or treating them like imbeciles. Some folks think we deserve to be treated poorly. To them I say "You first."

Lastly, quit defending the work of people who clearly think you're stupid. It won't pay off in the long run.

Movies, believe it or not, are a reflection of where our culture is / is headed.When a studio doesn't feel they need to spend 15 minutes on plot then they won't. Studios WANT you to have zero expectations. That way, when they take your money, you won't feel cheated. You will be as docile as the cow, chewing on your cud. And again, that's fine for you. That's your choice. I'm only saying I kind of like films that make a modicum of sense. Clearly that makes me a monster to some folks.

No, every film can't be Memento, not every film has an intrinsic value. Some are for escape. But Star Trek, Iron Man, Dark Knight, The Hangover… these are all films that people at least respected the audience on. Michael Bay himself says "It's a robot movie" as if that exonerates him. As if not trying is some virtuous thing. I reject that argument as apathetic and lazy.

Throughout the history of time companies have been about making money. And that's fine, they are up front about the art being secondary. But it doesn't have to be that way for everyone else. You can admit Trans2 was idiotic and realize you'd like to see a better movie. It won't hurt. Give it a try.

And yes, I do think I'm witty. In fact, I'll go even further, I am witty in actuality.

**And if you don't agree with that I'd say your expectations for wit are too high. You shouldn't take wit so seriously. You should admit I'm witty and give me your money. Otherwise you're a wit snob. Sorry, just gotta call it like I see it.

@laremy:

Hahaha I'm glad someone else noticed the magic bandage scene. I haven't read anything about that yet.

Oh and I agree you have wit. I have been following the Oracle column for some time now. The force is strong with you for that. Personally, I look forward to the comments of the bottom 5 movies lol

@Roger: Thanks Roger. You're all heart.

Re: the bandage scene someone told me that the bandage came from Megan Fox's dress. But they didn't show that happening, which certainly makes it tougher to comprehend.

I liked Transformers 2… oh, well. I got what I paid for: big robots, more big robots, and explosions. It's a special effects film. I'll pay to see that. The effects were better this time (don't try to deny that). The robots were contrasted much better: I could clearly tell what was going on in the fight scenes, as opposed to the first, wherein they became jumbles of techno-metal-blur. So, yeah. There's some progress. I rarely enjoy "critic favorites," though. Don't particularly care about the plight of upper west side transsexual heroin addicts. period. end of paragraph.

@kdogg: Star Trek was about heroin addicts? The Dark Knight involved a transsexual? WALL-E was shot on the upper west side?

On the other hand, if you can't impugn an entire profession without any real thought what CAN you do? I'm with you Kdogg. Screw everyone that likes stuff with story. Gimme the bright lights of explosions and almost recognizable decepticons any day of the week.

@Laremy: Damn you, Laremy! You took my joke. My fault for coming to the party late. Totally agree.

@Laremy: Did I say to hell with people who wanted more story? NO. I didn't. You however, interpreted transsexual heroin addicts to mean story. Says more about you than me. I said I was satisfied with Transformers 2. I knew what I was getting, and it was a fair deal. Only you critic types are ACTUALLY bitching about it. BTW, when Dark Knight came out, this website played it down. There was, unless my memory fails me, actually one or two articles (by Brad I believe) that poo-poed the idea it should've been nominated for an Oscar, and opined the masses watching it in droves! Now, you hold it up to defend yourself??? And Star Trek received a lukewarm response, at best, and the review of it on this site was very similar to what I just said about Tran2 (I knew what I was getting, there were flaws but I liked it anyways, etc.)!!! I think the 3 or 4 articles on this site, with a whining narrative about Tran2 and the critics v. viewers makes me wonder if you aren't protesting a bit TOO much. Ordinary, blue collar folks like me? We live the human condition. We don't need transsexual heroin addict movies to make us ponder it. Folks (who shall remain nameless) who don't labor for an honest living, don't actually produce ANYTHING, and aren't really necessary for commerce or society to continue day to day might need those things. We go to the movies to escape from the day to day world. Not to find reasons to shoot ourselves. Period. End of paragraph.

@kdogg: I think you misunderstood the joke. You called "critic favorites" the plight of heroin addicted upper west side transexuals, so laremy listed three of the best reviewed movies over the last year or so. Whether this site liked it or not, those films were critic favorites. Didn't say anything about story. You generalized how an entire group felt about something. It's a common argument fallacy, one we've all used before. I'm no better.

I think what it comes down to (I'm a hard working man myself so I say thank you for thinking I don't contribute anything to society because I hated this movie) is that yes we work hard for our money, and I think we deserve better. What you are missing is that this is how Michael Bay thinks of us as a whole. We are lazy when it comes to story, so we don't need story. But characters and story are important in our lives and it is something that we enjoy at the movies to watch. Why was The Dark Knight so popular? It's certainly dark. It's certainly depressing, but it was an engrossing story with one of the greatest villains to ever grace the screen. And we ate it up. Without a single robot hitting another robot.

You spent money on this movie…a movie that is essentially a piece of crap. A movie where in script meetings the writers would say, "This doesn't make any sense." "Who cares, it's got robots blowing up, throw in a French mime joke. These idiots won't care." "Hey, maybe we can get movie snobs to get really pissed at us and spend weeks arguing over its merits." "Enough talk, just write, I need to go spend my Star Trek money." I'm assuming this is how we went. Kdogg, we deserve better than this. And I used to defend tooth and nail any movie I spent money on. We can't get refunds, so we will take it easy on the movie. We don't want to feel like we got duped. But we did. And it seems that the people who saw it for free are the most vocal against it. Please note, I'm not insulting you. I don't want to insult any people who enjoyed the movie, but we have been hammered with mediocrity so much that once it seems like Hollywood is moving away from it, along comes a kid with a firecracker to blow a toe off our humanity and depth.

@spot: my generalization of critics is one they deserve. I got the joke. I stand by my criticism of them. As long as a movie contains a gay/bisexual character, regardless of how well it's written, it will get a better review than it deserves. Call it social justice by critic, or what you will, but many movies (Brokeback Mountain being the best example) are given much better reviews than they deserve. They barely skim the analysis of the characters, in order to focus on one aspect the director wants us to embrace, all the while ignoring gaping logic problems, character motivations, possible felonies… French mime jokes are fine. Who needs France, anyways (that's a joke, but you probably won't like it). Also, NO ONE GOT DUPED GOING INTO TRANSFORMERS 2!! It's a better, suped up version of the first one! If you didn't know that going in, then the problem isn't with Michael Bay…it's with you, dude.

@kdogg: Wow, so now we get to the truth of the situation. Um, first off, no one deserves sweeping generalization. It is a logical fallacy, the most used one there is. By that definition, Brad doesn't count as a critic since he gave a negative review to Bruno (which does feature a gay character as the lead…in case you missed the commercials). Also, do you deserve the sweeping generalization of homophobe? Also, tons of movies with gay characters have gotten negative reviews. I'm going to make a brief list here: The Next Best Thing, Another Gay Movie (one of the worst reviewed movies of 2008), Basic Instinct 1 and 2, Obsessed, I Know Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Big Daddy, But I'm a Cheerleader, Lie Down with Dogs, Adam and Steve, and more…lots more, so there, generalization doesn't work. Second, Brokeback Mountain is probably one of the best American films to be released in the last 10 years (though not directed by an American). If you can get past the gay subtext of the movie, you see a sad film with strongly developed characters who only found peace by being together, but couldn't deal with the reality of their own personal worlds. Also, the second best performance from Heath Ledger. And that movie did not barely skim the surface of character analysis. I had a homophobic friend who did sit down and watch Brokeback Mountain after I convinced him to and genuinely teared up at the end. He also like Transformers 2. Still a friend by the way, and I've yet to insult him for liking Transformers 2, and he has yet to insult me for hating it. Now, by using sweeping generalization, I can say that people who like Transformers 2 are actually homophobes (I could, but I won't). I also don't like French mime jokes not because they are French, but because it is hack writing. I hate the line in Die Hard With a Vengeance where he says he was aiming for that mime. We get it, Mimes are annoying, but how about trying to find a new fresh way for that joke. I'm a comic, and I hate the jokes about airline food, mother-in-laws, and farts (not in the movie, I mean in general). Lazy writing annoys me. Some thought is all I ask. My favorite bit of the argument is this one: They barely skim the analysis of the characters, in order to focus on one aspect the director wants us to embrace, all the while ignoring gaping logic problems, character motivations, possible felonies… which I'm guessing by now you realize that that pretty much describes Transformers 2. Also, the problem is with Michael Bay. I said I like the first one, I wanted to like the second one, I did. But it was too dumb and insulted me. So, the problem is certainly not with me. Again, a logical fallacy in your argument. It seems I'm being chastised for demanding that people who make $5 million aren't lazy with their storytelling. And yes, we did get duped.