Michael Bay called, he's looking for his movie back.
Am I the only one who notices a similar style?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Battleship (2012) Discussion > Michael Bay called, he's looking for his...
The quality of acting was certainly the same, as was the scale and quantity of seeing things go boom. The CGI was better in PH, though and considering that movie is 14 years old, that's pretty sad....
So to answer your question, no you weren't the only one to spot the similarities, lol.
That's funny because I was thinking to myself how much more engaging this movie was compared to those 3 dreadful Transformer sequels. This was brilliant compared to those incoherent, bum numbing 150 minute bore fests.
shareI didn't particularly enjoy this but your statement is spot on.
...then whoa, differences...
That's like saying "it was more entertaining than being repeatedly kicked in the groin."
--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.
This was brilliant compared to those incoherent, bum numbing 150 minute bore fests.
Oh c'mon, this is hardly any different. Besides the fact that Peter Berg failed to replicate Bay's signature 180 degree circular angle shot.
Regarding Transformers, I can understand disliking Revenge of the Fallen, but Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction were way more mature in tone and have just as interesting (and coherent) stories as the first film.
To this day, I still can't wrap my mind around how anyone can give the first Transformers film a pass but then act like Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction are worse than cancer. share
Well I did wonder for sometime why the fist transformer movie seemed superior in quality to the unwatchable sequels. Then I found out the truth that an emergency request was made to Steven Spielberg (who was head of the film company at the time) to come in and clean up Bay's first effort. Thankfully it paid off enough to make 'Transformers' watchable. But unfortunately with Bay having free run on the remaining movies, the rest is history. I suppose I should confess that based on how putridly bad 'Revenge of the Fallen' AND 'Dark of the Moon' BOTH were, in conjunction with overwhelmingly bad word of mouth, that I haven't yet bothered to watch all of 'Age of Extinction'. I think I'd rather watch Battleship' again.
shareBut how can you give Battleship a pass and yet still be harsh on the Transformers sequels? And you still haven't given any reason why.
Seems like you have some serious double standards going on here...
Personally I think the way in which they turned the strategic game of battleship into a story for a film was quite clever and at 131 minutes, it didn't quite outstay its welcome. Compare that to the transformer sequels BASED ON KIDS TOYS and obviously aimed at kids, yet with ridiculously long running times of 150 minutes+ that practically put the younger members of the target audience to sleep. After 2 hours of that stuff your eyes begin to glaze over as you begin to lose track of what exploding robot flying at the screen is meant to be good and which is bad and in the end you just find yourself yawning "When the *beep* is this going to end ?" They are all at least 50 minutes too long and undoubtedly it was only the fix up job done by Steven Spielberg in the fist movie that made it coherent enough to watch, even if it to was too long.
shareAs far as I am concerned, Michael Bay can't have his movie back until he apologizes for all the Transformers sequels
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsPrQgTO0HU
_____________________
I'm your Huckleberry.