Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen [Official]

[Chlorofun]

i thought the movie was flippin awesome, they should have killed off more autobots though, chromia, and arcee werent enough.  

[Master Chief Johnny Halo]

ooobled-

i thought the movie was flippin awesome, they should have killed off more autobots though, chromia, and arcee werent enough.

i agree  

[Chlorofun]

Lolicat von Doom

xTx Monty xTx

http://www.comicvine.com/news/even-more-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-images/138667/
look and read then dicuss. to me i already have my ticket for it.
and from what i heard this might be micheal bay last time working on this movie after it the 3rd one will be taken up by someone else who idk but it gonna be hard to do

If only that sentence said 'might be the last time Michael Bay works in movies.' That time has been long overdue.

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple  

[loIitoads]

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

xTx Monty xTx

http://www.comicvine.com/news/even-more-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-images/138667/
look and read then dicuss. to me i already have my ticket for it.
and from what i heard this might be micheal bay last time working on this movie after it the 3rd one will be taken up by someone else who idk but it gonna be hard to do

If only that sentence said 'might be the last time Michael Bay works in movies.' That time has been long overdue.

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.  

[Chlorofun]

Lolicat von Doom

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

xTx Monty xTx

http://www.comicvine.com/news/even-more-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-images/138667/
look and read then dicuss. to me i already have my ticket for it.
and from what i heard this might be micheal bay last time working on this movie after it the 3rd one will be taken up by someone else who idk but it gonna be hard to do

If only that sentence said 'might be the last time Michael Bay works in movies.' That time has been long overdue.

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?  

[Quixotic Faye]

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

xTx Monty xTx

http://www.comicvine.com/news/even-more-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-images/138667/
look and read then dicuss. to me i already have my ticket for it.
and from what i heard this might be micheal bay last time working on this movie after it the 3rd one will be taken up by someone else who idk but it gonna be hard to do

If only that sentence said 'might be the last time Michael Bay works in movies.' That time has been long overdue.

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?

Because one has to see a movie in order to form an opinion on it, and to form an opinion about a director, one has to see several of his/her movies. Seriously, your rebuttal is the dumbest trope in the history of terrible debating. Not all critiques have to be positive, and it doesn't make an opinion any less valid either.  

[Chlorofun]

Quixotic Faye

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

xTx Monty xTx

http://www.comicvine.com/news/even-more-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-images/138667/
look and read then dicuss. to me i already have my ticket for it.
and from what i heard this might be micheal bay last time working on this movie after it the 3rd one will be taken up by someone else who idk but it gonna be hard to do

If only that sentence said 'might be the last time Michael Bay works in movies.' That time has been long overdue.

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?

Because one has to see a movie in order to form an opinion on it, and to form an opinion about a director, one has to see several of his/her movies. Seriously, your rebuttal is the dumbest trope in the history of terrible debating. Not all critiques have to be positive, and it doesn't make an opinion any less valid either.

. my rebuttals arent meant to be award winning, they just point out what should be common sense, you cant say you like or hate a movie without seeing it. but say this was lolicat's first time seeing a micheal bay movie and she didnt like it, well ok, but why would someone see a movie when they know they wont like it?it seems as though she saw quite a few micheal bay films, so she should have known what was coming. im not trying to put anyone down, its just that its confusing as to why someone would force themselves to see a movie when they know they arent going to like it. and i never said all reviews had to be positive, its just that lolicat seems like she has seen his movies before, and disliked them, so transformers should have been expected. she can still post negative reviews all she wants, no one is stopping her- what i said was just on a side note.  

[Atheist Guy]

ooobled-

Quixotic Faye

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

ooobled-

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?

Because one has to see a movie in order to form an opinion on it, and to form an opinion about a director, one has to see several of his/her movies. Seriously, your rebuttal is the dumbest trope in the history of terrible debating. Not all critiques have to be positive, and it doesn't make an opinion any less valid either.

. my rebuttals arent meant to be award winning, they just point out what should be common sense, you cant say you like or hate a movie without seeing it. but say this was lolicat's first time seeing a micheal bay movie and she didnt like it, well ok, but why would someone see a movie when they know they wont like it?it seems as though she saw quite a few micheal bay films, so she should have known what was coming. im not trying to put anyone down, its just that its confusing as to why someone would force themselves to see a movie when they know they arent going to like it. and i never said all reviews had to be positive, its just that lolicat seems like she has seen his movies before, and disliked them, so transformers should have been expected. she can still post negative reviews all she wants, no one is stopping her- what i said was just on a side note.

every rebuttal has to be award winning in my opinion.  

[xTx Monty xTx]

Atheist Guy

ooobled-

Quixotic Faye

ooobled-

Lolicat von Doom

ooobled-

if you dont like his movies, then dont watch them- plain and simple

That's a pretty poor counter-argument, especially when you consider my stance on his films is generally (I can forgive Armageddon for personal reasons) that they are all awful, and that the money spent on the special effects alone should be spent on either four other, better films or better yet, charity. Bay's excess in budget and visuals is an insult to quality film-making and human dignity, and furthermore only breeds an incompetent new breed of directors and film-makers that care only for looks with no real depth of characterisation or, you know, any of those other things art fags like. Also, before someone 'points out' to me that not everything has to be artistically valuable, let me highlight that most films, no matter how bad, have tended to attempt at least some artistic depth, and those that haven't have been regarded as B-Movies. A bigger budget does not save something from being a B-Movie, and Bay's films are pure exploitation from beginning to end.

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?

Because one has to see a movie in order to form an opinion on it, and to form an opinion about a director, one has to see several of his/her movies. Seriously, your rebuttal is the dumbest trope in the history of terrible debating. Not all critiques have to be positive, and it doesn't make an opinion any less valid either.

. my rebuttals arent meant to be award winning, they just point out what should be common sense, you cant say you like or hate a movie without seeing it. but say this was lolicat's first time seeing a micheal bay movie and she didnt like it, well ok, but why would someone see a movie when they know they wont like it?it seems as though she saw quite a few micheal bay films, so she should have known what was coming. im not trying to put anyone down, its just that its confusing as to why someone would force themselves to see a movie when they know they arent going to like it. and i never said all reviews had to be positive, its just that lolicat seems like she has seen his movies before, and disliked them, so transformers should have been expected. she can still post negative reviews all she wants, no one is stopping her- what i said was just on a side note.

every rebuttal has to be award winning in my opinion.

i for one will be boycott Meghan fox who with me
and on a lighter note it is conformed that transformer 3 will be made in 2011 even though bay wanted it to be release 2012 of july 4th but they misheard him so yea. And it possible their gonna try to bring the dinobots or that Orci has mentioned he would like to introduce Unicron "for scale's sake" The co-writer also said focusing on more Triple Changers would be interesting which to me would be alright but on the lighter note i still didn't the dark knight by 60 million i think idr what numbers but oh well look like gi joe will have to take the kill or something  

[Post Coital Cookie]

I loved it personally. Loved that there was more action and far less cheesy dialogue. I don't get the Megan Fox hype, but whatever, she was there, what can I do? I actually really loved the twins and the testicles part was pretty funny to me. I wouldn't say it was the best movie I'd ever seen, but it was good.  

[Chlorofun]

hey, did anyone else notice that they brought bonecrusher back as well? i knew they would be bringing blackout and megatron back, but bonecrusher? he is shown in the desert scene when all the meteors start raining down. his vehicle mode is seen driving through the kicked up dust for a very brief moment, then is never seen again.  

[Atheist Guy]

xTx Monty xTx

Atheist Guy

ooobled-

Quixotic Faye

ooobled-

money spent on all movies can be given to charity, there is no exception to a movie because it contains more depth. i still stand by my earlier comment- why would you go see his movies if you hate them? and if you never saw transformers, why are you in this thread?

Because one has to see a movie in order to form an opinion on it, and to form an opinion about a director, one has to see several of his/her movies. Seriously, your rebuttal is the dumbest trope in the history of terrible debating. Not all critiques have to be positive, and it doesn't make an opinion any less valid either.

. my rebuttals arent meant to be award winning, they just point out what should be common sense, you cant say you like or hate a movie without seeing it. but say this was lolicat's first time seeing a micheal bay movie and she didnt like it, well ok, but why would someone see a movie when they know they wont like it?it seems as though she saw quite a few micheal bay films, so she should have known what was coming. im not trying to put anyone down, its just that its confusing as to why someone would force themselves to see a movie when they know they arent going to like it. and i never said all reviews had to be positive, its just that lolicat seems like she has seen his movies before, and disliked them, so transformers should have been expected. she can still post negative reviews all she wants, no one is stopping her- what i said was just on a side note.

every rebuttal has to be award winning in my opinion.

i for one will be boycott Meghan fox who with me
and on a lighter note it is conformed that transformer 3 will be made in 2011 even though bay wanted it to be release 2012 of july 4th but they misheard him so yea. And it possible their gonna try to bring the dinobots or that Orci has mentioned he would like to introduce Unicron "for scale's sake" The co-writer also said focusing on more Triple Changers would be interesting which to me would be alright but on the lighter note i still didn't the dark knight by 60 million i think idr what numbers but oh well look like gi joe will have to take the kill or something

amen...  

[loIitoads]

I do find Megan Fox infinitely more irritating than any other actress that comes to mind at the moment. She has literally no talent, she's just a bauble. I mean, at least the likes of Jolie are actually talented, but choose rubbish films due to what one assumes is a lack of taste or love of money. Every time I see Fox on screen, all I can imagine is her being exactly the same as the character she played in How to Lose Friends and ALienate People. Obviously a little more intelligent to have appeared in such a self-depreceting role... or a lot less intelligent not to have noticed it.

As for why I would watch a Michael Bay film, there are various reasons, ranging from 'watched it with friends at a DVD night' or 'I had nothing else to watch and wanted something new.' Nor would I be so completely conceited not to allow for a change in his style, and give him another chance.  

[pepper79]

The movie was AMAZING. I'm going tomorrow for my third time.... I love the cars. Don't judge me for being me.  

[ena_kool]

this movie is so awesome.
i love bumblebee when he cry. 4laugh
i love the robot twin.
i love everything about this movie heart