I tend to analyze (okay, over analyze) every movie I watch, and I couldn’t help but do the same with this film. I need to see it again, but I do feel that all the elements were there – just jumbled up and disjointed. For me, I feel that the central theme of “letting go of the past and moving forward” was more “tell instead of show”. It felt like there were two schools of story telling – one that trust the audience and one that believes in spoon feeding – and these two thoughts are at contrasting (borderline dueling) play at different times throughout the film. Maybe this indeed speaks to your theory that there is a new belief that the thrill IS the story, while there are those still holding onto basic, solid story structure.

I might even argue that the bones of the characters were there, but pieces of flesh and skin were absent. In terms of plot, when it comes to a movie like this, it’s really hard to argue what does and does not makes sense. After all, it is a movie about transforming, alien robots, who come to earth and disguise themselves as transportation vehicles – and to be honest, just the premise alone has one stretching their imaginations pretty thin. That’s another issue or potential problem, the fact that the original story/premise is built around animated objects, and the films attempt to add humans as co-protagonists. Who is this story REALLY about, and why should I spend the next 2 hours caring? I cared about Wall-E. I cared about the Iron Giant. I cared about the Little Toaster. Though, I’m not sure I really care about any of the Transformers (okay, maybe the old one – he was personified and had a backstory).

Like I said, I could really go on and on analyzing this film, and not so much for putting it down, but for learning from both what worked and did not work for me, the audience member.

I’d love to hear more of what you thought in detail, that is, if you plan on finishing the film. While I walked out of the theater not completely satisfied, there were moments I was entertained.

Oh…, and I find Contour to be a productive and really strong software!

Making movies based on the condensed music video paradigms is old news, but perhaps the new paradigm is not music vids but video games. Gamers appreciate some story structure, but only enough to sweeten the gaming action. Funny, action was formally used to sweeten the story, now it’s the opposite.

As gaming eclipses movie watching (as it has in Japan) perhaps movie makers will appropriate gaming’s paradigms?

In most games you can replay your latest dogfight or shoot-out with the bad guys. Maybe Transformers 2 is the replay of Mr. Bay’s recent gaming session.

Action is only really involving, if you care about the people involved,

This is now officially my new favorite quote.

Thanks for the kind words, Nick. I agree whole-heartedly with what you’re saying. I’m not sure if TRANSFORMERS is trying to create a new paradigm or not, but it’s going to be interesting to see what follows in the wake of its success.

The only brain trust involved here, I think, is the one that continues to figure out in a slimy way that you really can compromise heavily and still make lots of money. I don’t think that says much for the industry, and it’s certainly not saying much about the audience – and about how they regard the audience. The only reason I can enjoy the thrill of space mountain is because the roller coaster is secured solidly to the logic of the tracks – the frame and structure.

Not to sound gushy, but I’m grateful for people like you – people who care enough about story, and the logic of story, that you’ve come up with some fantastic software to help people like us, struggling writers who want to learn craft and about quality. There has to be a standard, even if it has been around for 100 years. We’d had soap around for longer than that , but that doesn’t mean we should all start bathing with cabbage.

Some things are just meant to stay around.

Why do good concepts often end up so bad?!

Dave
in Maine