My final evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cax-1WgqiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p82viKpyrzQ

http://megan-fox.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/transformers2-promos-megan-fox_net-3.jpg

I’m going to ask you a question that many fine looking ladies have asked me before: How can this be wrong when it feels so right?

Answer me THAT, Steve. Answer me that.

Thank you for your patronage.

Sorry, in point 3 I messed up the HTML italics. It should have read:

3. The reason I can argue about a film I haven’t seen is because, again, my point was never to discuss the merits of the film itself, but rather to discuss what people were saying about the film.

1. You did mention Transformers directly by name. (And referred to it multiple other times indirectly… The implication seemed to be that, while the broad scope of your article included all “action” films, Transformers was the specific example through which you were making your point. That is the same way in which I used it.)

2. I understand perfectly what your thesis was. Metaphors and all. And if you’d approached MY writings as a whole, you’d understand that I was directly arguing that exact thesis. Not that it is wrong (because I actually agree with the principle behind it), but that it’s based on a set of false premises. The first premise is that critics attack action movies because of their lack of depth. I repeatedly – repeatedly – explained that most people don’t criticize these films for being superficial, they criticize them if they’re poorly made in action/blockbuster terms. The second premise is that exemption from unfair criticism equals exemption from any criticism. My point was simply that there is still room for criticism in the world of blockbuster movies. There are well made blockbusters, and there are poorly made blockbusters. A movie can be superficial but still be well-made. I don’t know how much more clear I can be about this stuff.

3. The reason I can argue about a film I haven’t seen is because, again, my point was never to discuss the merits of the film itself, but rather to discuss what people were about the film.

4. The getting bogged down in “subgenres… etc.” started when you nit-picked every single one of the examples in my first post – which were intentionally chosen to represent a broad spectrum of action/blockbuster movies, thereby avoiding the very “genre comparisons” that you claimed to be avoiding.

5. I agree, MIB is more of a comedy than Transformers. But there are still a lot of comedic elements in the latter. The leg-humping, the jive-talking robots, John Turturro’s entire character…. When it comes down to it, both movies are big summer blockbusters with aliens, crazy technology, end-of-the-world scenarios, major destruction, and comic relief. I maintain they’re pretty similar.

6. My goal is NOT to make a case that all people hate Transformers. Granted, that probably was a subconscious collateral goal, for which I apologize, but the main point of listing all of those examples was A. to back up my argument about what it was specifically that people were criticizing the film for, and B. to show that it was a broad spectrum of people doing the criticizing, not just snobby film critics.

7. I honestly wanted to like Transformers when I first saw it. I really did. I was even excited for it. And just a few weeks earlier, I had seen Live Free or Die Hard – a movie just as base, if not moreso, than Transformers – and enjoyed it just fine. But something about Transformers just really struck the wrong chord for me. A similar experience I had more recently was with The Day The Earth Stood Still. Trust me, it’s not that I’m unwilling to engage these films on their own level. You are trying to equate superficiality with what critics call “poor quality,” and the two are not the same. They are completely separate and different categories of description, and really have hardly anything to do with each other. I’ve tried to explain this to you over and over and you aren’t hearing it. Nothing more I can say will make a difference either way, so I’ll leave this last post in your hands and resign myself from the conversation.

Let me begin by saying that we have done and are doing what I am saying you should never do: we are thinking deeply about and giving serious consideration to Michael Bay movies. Nevertheless, the train is rolling so I must continue to travel with it. I’ll start with points you made that I agree with:

“which you insufficiently explained in the post to which I was responding.” – You’re probably correct. My thesis wasn’t clear, nor was my exact definition well stated. I was trying to avoid getting bogged down in genres, subgenres, and comparisons. Here we are, though, doing just that.

So that is why I say the film “doesn’t even succeed on its own terms,” which you diplomatically suggested was a “retarded” thing to say. Grow up. – True, that wasn’t diplomatic to say. It was reactionary. I stand by the point, but not by the delivery if it limited the idea being conveyed.

You come off as condescending and downright disdainful. – The disdain was definitely there. That was intended. Again, though, I should have shown more restraint.

So, Steve, I apologize for not being more restrained in my response. I let anger drive the bus, and I shouldn’t have. However, I stand by the points I made. Quickly:

I reacted so negatively to your mention of MIB not because I didn’t like it and not because I don’t think it’s an “action” movie, but because I always thought of it as a comedy more than an action movie. There was action, of course, but when I think back on that movie I think of the humor more than the special effects. That is why I “indignantly chided” your mention of it. It was a comedy. Transformers was not. I feel as though “I, Robot” would have been a better example for you to choose. Either way, I still think that the comparisons are pretty pointless to make.

You didn’t say anything about the source material which, like it or not, inevitably plays a significant part in shaping how the film will turn out.

Even still, disregarding the poorly written scripts (which I noted in my article) the film succeeds in that it has fantastic action sequences. You and other critics say they’re a clusterfuck. That’s nice, but I didn’t think so. A lot of other people who have paid to see the film would also disagree with you. You can cite as many examples as you want of film critics, sports radio hosts, and homeless people that hated Transformers. You’re still not going to successfully make a case that all people hate either or both movies, which is what you’re essentially trying to do in order to further substantiate your argument. I can cite just as many that loved it. After Spielberg watched Tranformers 2 he said it was Bay’s best film yet. Bay is the first filmmaker to be allowed to shoot on location at the pyramids by the Egyptian government because Dr Zahi Hawass, the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, was a fan of the first Transformers movie. Sorry man, but that says something. Some people clearly enjoy his action sequences, even if you did not.

If you’re pissed about the writing, the characters, the stupid humor, or the objectification of women, then you should criticize the writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman who, incidentally, wrote the latest Star Trek movie as well.

In closing, Steve, I’m sorry you don’t like Transformers. I enjoyed both films for what they were, and I feel as though if you are able to engage them on their level (superficially) then you will also be able to find pleasure in them. If not, that’s okay. My only request is that you don’t look down on those of us that do enjoy them, because it really isn’t a case of low quality but of differing preferences. In the end, that is why this discussion is completely pointless. You don’t like them and I do. This is not objectivity.

Also, I like Kent’s writing better than yours. So there. Really though, he’s a great writer. I hope you come back and read everything he’s written, it’s worth your time.

That being said, you still seem to have no problem ignoring those shortcomings. Which is why the second part of my argument is based on the terms you deemed acceptable. See, the trouble with Transformers isn’t just that all the major elements of the film are so painfully bad, it’s that the action itself is a MESS. If you’d actually read most of the reviews of the film, you’d realize that that is what all the critics are ranting against. Yes, there are explosions. And yes, there is CG. But it’s so frenetic and disjointed and nonsensical that it’s less a “fun” experience than a just plain excruciating one. “You’d need an evolved alien brain to be able to follow the battle scenes,” as one critic put it. Like I said in my first post, nobody is criticizing this film for not being philosophically engaging, they’re criticizing it because it’s a giant clusterfuck. Transformers could have been a cool big-screen blockbuster… but Michael Bay’s handling of it, unfortunately, squandered that opportunity. At least, that is, in my own personal opinion. And the opinion of many movie reviewers – whether they write for New York Magazine or Ain’t It Cool News. In fact, the guy at Ain’t It Cool even felt the need to apologize, saying he’s usually a big supporter of Michael Bay – he loved Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon (which I did as well, incidentally) – but that he can’t stand Transformers. He didn’t even like a single action scene in the first film. (Though it should be noted, he DID like several in the new film, so I will give you that. And I personally haven’t seen Revenge of the Fallen, so most of what I’ve been saying is based on the first film, and the general consensus I’ve heard about the second one.) I mean, even the local sports radio hosts – who don’t have a single ounce of pretension in their bodies when it comes to films – said that the movie was horrendous. So that is why I say the film “doesn’t even succeed on its own terms,” which you diplomatically suggested was a “retarded” thing to say. Grow up. But actually, I guess that’s fitting from someone who derives non-guilty pleasure(or perhaps it is actually guilty, given your obsessive defensiveness) from a film that so blatantly objectifies women, and plays jokes at a “Drake and Josh” level, as one reviewer put it. So yes, I guess my reasons for hating the movie are at least partially pretentious – if you’re in middle school.

Though, incidentally, if you want to call someone who likes Armageddon and Men In Black and Die Hard (and countless other mainstream blockbusters) a “haughty, nose-in-the-air” person….. then I’m afraid you’ve squandered your last ounce of credibility in this discussion. Not only that, but you’ve somehow managed to make “anti-pretentiousness”…. pretentious. If my original comment was “laced” with pretension, then your response is sewn with the very thread of it. You come off as condescending and downright disdainful. So congrats, you’ve really made yourself look good with this one.

Anyway, I guess the overall point of this whole thing, for me, is that your original tirade was just way off base. Not only were there plenty of critics who gave decent reviews to the film (Entertainment Weekly, for example, gave it a B, the same grade they gave to such acclaimed films as Good Will Hunting, The Lord of the Rings, and Slumdog Millionaire), but you completely mischaracterized those critics who DID give it bad reviews. Most people weren’t criticizing it in the ways you were attacking them for criticizing it. You basically set up a straw-man just so you could indulge in a contemptuous diatribe, for who knows what reason. And that is why I felt the need to set the record straight. If you’re gonna be so livid, at least have a legitimate foundation for your outrage. And, to use your own words, if you still can’t see the misconceptions in your perspective after reading what I wrote, then I can’t help you.

Also, I like Kent’s detached ironic humor a lot more than your hyper-sarcastic ranting. It’s more enjoyable.

The examples you give of “action movies” are all pretty poor when comparing to Transformers. Star Wars and Indiana Jones (the first three in both situations) are classics and are more epic, action “adventure” films. Not really even close to what Transformers is or ever will be. I don’t think Bay was shooting at that target, but you’re right in saying that if he was aiming at making the next Star Wars, he missed.

Of course Die Hard is better than Transformers! Who even needs to point that out?

And Terminator 2? Way more serious of a film than Transformers.

Men in Black? Seriously man, who are you? Men in Black? I’m not going to dignify that with anything more than my astonishment.

I think the Bourne films all sucked, but I read the books. I also hate the camera style that they use in those films, so for me Bay’s style is much more enjoyable. Again, though, I think these movies are pretty impossible to compare. Look at the sources on which they are based. One is based on action/spy/espionage books by Robert Ludlum. One is based on a cartoon that was created as an elaborate marketing plan for a new set of toys. Come on Steve, lighten up.

Then you bring in the new Batman films. Are you kidding me here, Steve? Those are clearly better movies, but AGAIN I point out that Transformers 1 and 2 were never intended to be anything but special effects orgies.

And finally JJAbrams reboot of Star Trek. Just… No, Steve. No. Different styles, different aims, different… Everything. You just can’t compare them.

Didn’t you ever see True Lies? Or Last Action Hero? Or any Swarz film? Rambo from last year is a GREAT example of a similar movie. Retarded story, stupid acting, but still an enjoyable film experience. I knew I was going in for tons of ridiculous violence and guns and explosions. I had the humility to recognize that Rambo would not even be CLOSE to what Batman Begins was, but that didn’t stop me from engaging it and enjoying it. That’s more of what I’m comparing Bay films to. Clearly Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay aren’t even in the same building in terms of making an all around great movie, but Bay knows how to make a good popcorn action flick. That’s what I was trying to point out to haughty, nose-in-the-air people like you. People that say they “use discernment” in their action fare. What the hell does that even mean? Kind of an oxymoron, Steve.

You say that his movies “don’t succeed on any terms.” That’s clearly a retarded thing to say. There are great action sequences in both films. Transformers 2 in the IMAX made my occipital lobe explode out of the back of my head. At the end of the day, Steve, you don’t like Michael Bay’s style. That’s fine. I do, and a lot of other people do as well. $300 million worth of people in the first two weeks, actually. If you can’t understand why do after the article that I wrote, then I can’t help you. Put on Die Hard and enjoy a common ground we can all support.