MrBrightside919:
I like how everyone is getting all bent out of shape over Transformers 2...

When a turd comes along and blocks up the system, the plumbers have gotta do something...

CMon:

EDIT: CLARIFICATION Y'ALL
A lot of you don't seem to grasp that what I'm criticizing here isn't the fact that MovieBob didn't like the film. I wouldn't go see it again. But he's taking the entirely_wrong_approach. I am well aware that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and such, but using that against me is an act of extreme redundancy. As is the act of saying "your opinion doesn't matter any more than others". Of course it doesn't. Also, go around and serve that dish in every single thread in this board, I'll wait, because there are certainly no-one around here that has an opinon of higher importance.

I'm curious as to what you think is the "correct approach" is. Also, just because an argument is redundant doesn't mean it's flawed. But really, I think the main reason people are throwing "your opinion doesn't matter any more than others" here is because a review is purely objective. You don't have to agree with one, and if you don't, there is no reason to break off into a long winded rant about it. Just comment "I don't agree with you" and leave it at that.

MovieBob:
I'm a bit surprised to learn that I had credibility to LOSE, in the first place... ;)

Apparently this guy thinks you do. Actually, by saying you had credibility is saying that at one point, this guy thought of you somewhat respectfully. Credibility is also a purely objective viewpoint.

Dj Dusk:
Transformers 2 rules.
Two words: Megan Fox

That's because she was digitally enhanced.

OK, I'm going to spell this out for the legions of you who haven't understood Cmon;

He does not have issue with MovieBob saying Transformers 2 is a bad film. He does have issue with the fact that most of the review was spent with him bitching because it's not exactly the same as a toy line from the 80's, rather than reviewing the movie itself.

Then again, everyone seems to be ignoring me lately. Sorry Cmon, I tried.

TheXRatedDodo:

I hate to reply without reading the other 2 and 3/4 pages, but I felt the need to reply to this nagging away at me like a small mexican child.
Film Critics get paid to do what they do because they know what they're talking about a tad more than your average kid who wants to see explosions for two hours.
Until The Escapist are hiring you to review films for them, your opinion matters far less than you'd like to think it does.

Well that sure is a subjective claim. You're right in the sense that he 'matters more' due to being a reviewer that a lot of people will visit and listen to, seeing as he has his own column and whatnot. You're wrong in the sense that professional reviewers are "better" in any sort of way as if they all had some kind of education to which cup of tea tastes better. That said, my view on his view into criticism is something that a lot of people disagree with, but a lot of people agree with to, so I guess it's individual.

Knight Templar:
Every single other review I have seen agrees with moviebob, are you going pointlessly to attack all of them as well?

What makes you think that?

MovieBob:

captain awesome 12:
How could you go see Transformer 2: Revenge of the Fallen directed by Michael Bayhem, sequel to the 2007 ActionexplosionBOOMfest Transformers and actually expect there to be a legitimate story?

Because it's a narrative film, and thus HAS a story, and thus the worth (or lack thereof) of said story has to be taken into account. If this was a non-narrative film, some sort of FX showcase-reel set to music, I'd review it as such. But it's not - it has a story, which is trite, cliche-ridden, full of holes and poorly-executed, and so it has to be taken into account. There ARE films that "make up for" a weak story by being lots of fun or by having personality; see: pretty much anything with Jason Statham, and some would argue that the recent "Star Trek" revamp was in the same boat. "Transformers 2" is not one of those films. It's a badly-made film that only highlights a bad script (one which is hack writers are ALREADY trying to distance themselves from.)

Well I agree with you. While it has good action scenes (shows out to be my opinion and not yours ;]) it has excessive length and is obviously trying so hard to be special in terms of plot and story, but fails at the second scene with the romantic phonecall. (Luckily it got broken off by miniature robots getting their ass handed to them by a Ford Mustang.) Now don't get me wrong, I don't suddenly agree with you just because you decide to visit my thread, but I think if you had argumented for yourself in the way you're doing now, the review would have been a lot better and much more comprehensible.

MovieBob:

yet instead of focusing directly on the film's shortcomings he went into a detailed analysis of why he hates Michael Bay, and how only douchebags could enjoy this movie. He could definitely have done better with this review, which ended up being little more than a rant about how Michael Bay is ruining everything he loved in his childhood.

*snip the rest*

That's a fair view. I mean, MB's films aren't for the more sophisticated crowd and most reviewers are in fact not hillbillies that are only dependent on bang and boom to find a movie to be a great success. I understand how you can feel he jizzed all over parts of your childhood by stealing stuff from the Transformers franchise and making a particularly long mainstream action flick of it. I'm just saying that I think if you made up half of your review by narrating on how Michael Bay and the newest Transformers movie rapes something you held dear in your wee years, and then focussing on elements more handfast for everyone for the other half, it'd be a review that I, and I'm pretty sure mostly everyone else could relate to. As it stands I feel like it's more of a rant than a review, something which I'm getting blasted for myself ;)

I suppose I would have understood it if I were into the whole oldschool transformers-scheme, but I'm not, and that's why it seemed confusing to me to attack a film on the grounds that you did. Yes, you should compare films to sources, but there's not a written rule that states that most of the emphasis should be put on the similarity, or lack of it. I went to see the film "Angels and Demons". I've read the book, which made the movie experience far weaker as I already knew the plot turns, and a movie that was supposed to be a web of intrigue became awfully predictable. I still tried seeing it from another point of view and ended up thinking of it as a good film, but I chose not to review it because my view on things was flawed.

The_root_of_all_evil:
I find it funny how your review of Moviebob sounds very similar to Yahtzee. Are you perhaps plagiarizing him?

I'll admit at this point that I like Yahtzee's reviews and concept and that he's the main reason I ever visited the Escapist in the first place. I've had the same writing style for years though and you're not the first to mention that there's similarities. So yeah, I'd say he's an inspiration source among many, but I won't say that he's a huge influence to how I say things.

Chipperz:
OK, I'm going to spell this out for the legions of you who haven't understood Cmon;

He does not have issue with MovieBob saying Transformers 2 is a bad film. He does have issue with the fact that most of the review was spent with him bitching because it's not exactly the same as a toy line from the 80's, rather than reviewing the movie itself.

Then again, everyone seems to be ignoring me lately. Sorry Cmon, I tried.

You're not the first one that has tried to explain this. I'm guessing the main reason for all the pieces of broken record I'm seeing here is that people comment before going in depth. (I.e. "this guy is probably just some regular knucklehead, I'm gonna read half of the first post and then comment on it without reading the rest of the thread")

It's important that discussion/debate threads are read before replied to, atleast the first and last relevant pages. This is sadly something only half of the people on the internet has the brain capacity to understand, and most of them stay the fuck away from forums in fear of being infected by severe stupidity cancer.

Okay, everybodies said their piece, I'm going to shamble off bearingthe immutable impression that anyone who disagrees with me is too stupid to peel their own bananas, since that's the general mindset in here. Can everybody just go and seethe in a corner and acknowledge that the original post was never going to spawn anything resembling level headed discussion?

This thread is over.

=D been waiting for someone to moan about movie bob's review. I think it takes the complete piss. In my opinion, it is evident that he just doesn't like micheal Bay. He is entitled to an opinion, as a critic, but he does not say one positive thing about this movie.

How about one simple thing: At what point in the movie do the robots look completely unreal? The special effects are amazing, and the actor's efforts pay off. It is acted so well you would never guess the robots weren't actually there.

Simples

MovieBob:

captain awesome 12:
How could you go see Transformer 2: Revenge of the Fallen directed by Michael Bayhem, sequel to the 2007 ActionexplosionBOOMfest Transformers and actually expect there to be a legitimate story?

Because it's a narrative film, and thus HAS a story, and thus the worth (or lack thereof) of said story has to be taken into account. If this was a non-narrative film, some sort of FX showcase-reel set to music, I'd review it as such. But it's not - it has a story, which is trite, cliche-ridden, full of holes and poorly-executed, and so it has to be taken into account. There ARE films that "make up for" a weak story by being lots of fun or by having personality; see: pretty much anything with Jason Statham, and some would argue that the recent "Star Trek" revamp was in the same boat. "Transformers 2" is not one of those films. It's a badly-made film that only highlights a bad script (one which is hack writers are ALREADY trying to distance themselves from.)

yet instead of focusing directly on the film's shortcomings he went into a detailed analysis of why he hates Michael Bay, and how only douchebags could enjoy this movie. He could definitely have done better with this review, which ended up being little more than a rant about how Michael Bay is ruining everything he loved in his childhood.

As a rule, I don't "defend" my reviews, because for better or worse they have to stand on their own. Even on the web, it's published, it's done, it is whatever it is. But on this point, I'll take the opportunity to at least "elaborate" on some critical-philosophy.

Firstly: Some filmmakers, particularly since the birth of so-called "Auteur Theory" film-scholarship, tend to have a unifying style, series of themes or favorite visual-quirks that continually occur in their work - in my opinion, this makes identifying their occurance and context often a key part of forming a proper regard of their individual films (see: Steven Spielberg's reccuring fixation on troubled or fractured sets of parents and his love of light-shafts stabbing through the darkness.) For good or ill, Bay is that sort of director. He goes back to the same themes and motifs (such as they are) again and again. That, plus the fact that his participation is such a massive part of the promotion ("A FILM BY MICHAEL BAY!!!!") makes trying to place this one individual film into the context of his larger ouvre something of a necessity for a well-rounded critique.

Secondly: As to the prior incarnations of the franchise... well, thats kind of the key word: Franchise. Obviously the final and most important aspect of ANY film or criticism of a film is it's own overall quality; but when you're dealing with something thats an adaptation it's my feeling that one is A.) obligated out of intellectual honesty to disclose one's prior "relationship" to the material if there is any (i.e. if I'm reviewing Spider-Man, I'm probably going to mention or make it otherwise clear that as a child I was memorably obsessive about Spidey) and B.) obligated out of intellectual curiousity to give some mention to what the film has to "say" about the material it's based on.

For example, shouldn't a critic reviewing "The Passion of The Christ" give at least some time to how the film interprets it's rather well-known source? If I'm looking at "Public Enemies" next week, should I not give attention to the 'real' story of John Dillinger versus whatever manner the film elects to present it? Obviously, questions of where this particular film diverges from the original mythos (whatever the hell that even means in this case) or visual motifs are secondary to it's actual quality. But they're relevant questions, even moreso when their answers tie back to the broaders critique (i.e. badly designed robots in a film that otherwise treats them as an afterthought.)

Well I actually have to say I feel quite a bit honored that you'd take the time to reply to my post.

I, good sir, am no critic. So I tend to ignore the story seeing as what the film was, and who it was by, while you as a paid reviewer could not do that. So I definitely agree with your first point. I wasn't even defending Transformer's story in the least, just expressing the futility of thinking that amidst the explosions, CGI, and military hardware an engagingly emotional narrative would be found. But very true, you as a critic have to take it into account because like you said, it does HAVE a story. In my mind I just see it as unnecessary to criticize something that bad, but I see why you did.

Your critical-philosophy makes loads of sense seeing it typed out in front of me, however in my humble opinion you didn't express it in the actual video review to the extent that you did here. I obviously don't know your process of making a Moviebob review, but I have seen all the videos you've done in the past. Your Up! review was fantastic, probably my favorite and I feel the best made. So it was kind of disappointing to see the way you reviewed Transformers in comparison to the way you reviewed Up! simply because all your points for why you like the latter were expressed beautifully. I kind of find it ironic, because your ideas behind the actual review of Transformers are incredibly detailed, and are an excellent complex analysis
of the film, yet in your actual review they were poorly executed in my opinion. I feel that the reason of this stems from your [cough cough] dislike of Michael Bay and your full on hate of the film itself. You quite obviously wanted to give it the lambasting you felt it deserved, it just ended up feeling very rant-ish and not up to your usual reviewing standard. I guess it's just difficult to try to be funny, angry, yet still sound respectable while reviewing a movie you despise.

The point is that in my eyes you haven't lost any credibility, you merely had a review that wasn't as good as others you've done. Your thoughts on the movie weren't as effectively transferred to your video style as past ones were. I still look forward to watching your next review as always.

Oh and about the robot designs, they ranged from downright awesome to downright stupid, but opinions vary.

If you can start the review with the universal greeting, and then give 'props' to those who know what you are talking about, you know you've got a fanboy.

Anyway, i find most reviewers very elitist. To be fair i'd just like something much quicker and simpler without telling me half of what's going on. Basically.

But, i may have an idea here anyway.

Senial:

MBFCPresident:
I agree with everything you said. I really liked Transformers 2 (except the story) and I am never watching/reading anything by MovieBob again.

How can you like a movie but not like its story? A movie is just an animated book.

For me, and possibly a lot of other people, movies are mostly visual. If this was not the case radio would dominate over television. Of course, you do need (or I need) a well developed story/likable characters to enjoy a film entirely but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy huge robots kicking each others asses. That was awesome!

I'd have to agree with pretty much all of MB's review, Except for the bit about the physical appearence of the transformers ( i actually prefer their design to the cartoon, but that's personal preference), the criticism was spot on: Meagen Fox is good eye candy but a terrible, TERRIBLE actress, the movie spent too much time on people/ annoying transformers, the twins are a racist caricature, and wheelie is pretty un-funny.

I felt the action was better then the first movie, but still fell into the same "Michael Bay confusion" I.E: it was too hard to discern robot fist from other robot fist. My biggest problem with the movie was that it introduced a ton of new bots but gave them no dialogue and barely any screen time. And why make Devastator look so awesome and then just make him dig a hole?!?! And why make up a crappy main villain?!? and where the fuck is soundwave?!?!

(curls up into ball of sadness tinged with wrath)

CMon:
Let me look inside my big book of Benjamin Croshaw quotes;

*cough*

"I am not a fanboy-YES YOU ARE!

My hate for you made a dramatic spike upwards the second I read that.

ultimatechance:
My hate for you made a dramatic spike upwards the second I read that.

...because you where the target in question?

No seriously, why?

CMon:

ultimatechance:
My hate for you made a dramatic spike upwards the second I read that.

...because you where the target in question?

No seriously, why?

Because you were able to perfectly sum up what makes the Yahtzee fanbase (well the idiotic part) so douchebag-like in such a small amount of text.

For starters, you did what Yahtzee hates the most, which is sucking up to him (and us in a way) by quoting him. Secondly, copying Yahtzee's style when reviewing is frowned upon here on the Escapist, and you pretty much did it proudly with that cute little big book of quotes thing. And as a personal pet peeve, visual and audible humour translate into a big pile of fail when you type it out in text.

Hope that answers your question.

PS: Nice avatar

ultimatechance:

CMon:

...because you where the target in question?

No seriously, why?

Because you were able to perfectly sum up what makes the Yahtzee fanbase (well the idiotic part) so douchebag-like in such a small amount of text.

For starters, you did what Yahtzee hates the most, which is sucking up to him (and us in a way) by quoting him. Secondly, copying Yahtzee's style when reviewing is frowned upon here on the Escapist, and you pretty much did it proudly with that cute little big book of quotes thing. And as a personal pet peeve, visual and audible humour translate into a big pile of fail when you type it out in text.

Hope that answers your question.

PS: Nice avatar

What on God's green earth are you smoking? I think I have to piece this up to get a proper overview of things.

ultimatechance:
Because you were able to perfectly sum up what makes the Yahtzee fanbase (well the idiotic part) so douchebag-like in such a small amount of text.

Oh, I get it, you're saying mostly everyone that likes Zero Punctuation are idiots.

ultimatechance:
For starters, you did what Yahtzee hates the most, which is sucking up to him (and us in a way) by quoting him.

So the fact that I used a quote of his because I figured it'd fit in the context makes me a suck-up? Yay? Also, what do you mean by "us in a way"? I have no interest in kissing ass with Ben Croshaw just because he's funny, just like I have no interest in kissing ass with Jim Carrey just because he's funny, but most of all I'm not interested in sucking up to you guys. It should be obvious by now that I don't need people on this forum to love me, and especially not people like you, or else I'd not make this thread in fear of stepping on fragile toes such as your own.

ultimatechance:
Secondly, copying Yahtzee's style when reviewing is frowned upon here on the Escapist, and you pretty much did it proudly with that cute little big book of quotes thing.

Yahtzee's style of reviewing is through fast speaking into a mic, riddled with puns and silly metaphors, supplemented with a comic-ish animation. My "style of reviewing" as you've seen it so far consists of summing up what I'm reviewing, and then playing some, I'll concede at this point, not very good jokes on it. There are hundreds, probably thousands of people that tried being funny while reviewing before people even knew who the bin Yahtzee was. Saying this is Yahtzee's unique way of doing reviews is like saying Michael Jackson invented dance. Oh, and I guess I must have been pretty retarded to assume that everyone in these forums had a brain with enough functionality to grasp that a "big book of quotes" was nothing but some playing around with phrases and words and that you'd understand that I don't keep anything like that under my bed or wherever you keep your fine literature. If you have any, ka-zing.

ultimatechance:
And as a personal pet peeve, visual and audible humour translate into a big pile of fail when you type it out in text.

Good thing it's written humor then.

ultimatechance:
Hope that answers your question.

Well it does answer my question regarding: "Hm, does this guy really take offense from nothing?" The answer is yes, by-the-woo.

ultimatechance:
PS: Nice avatar

I think so. That image couldn't help but provoke smiles at my face the first couple of dozen times I looked at it, but I'm guessing it makes your face look like a stroke victim. (Seeing as your remarkably negative attitude doesn't allow for you not to be sarcastic with that statement.)

CMon:

I will not validate your twisted hypocrisy and cop-outs with a response to your skewed logic.

I will, however, point out two things.

A.) Spell check. Use it. Nuff Said. Either that or read your material before posting, because half the time, I can't understand what you are saying.

B.) You certainly have a lot of time on your hands to sit here defending a post about a movie you didn't give a rat's ass about.

I have to say you got balls but look this is similar too what my friend said being a Transfomers Fan who did not like the movie its like to them there Childhood memory's are beings shit on by a hack (And yes if some one manages to make a movie about Pearl Harbor shitty then yes they are without question a hack) Try to see were they are coming from its like if someone came up and made a shitty Remake about Fight Club or a shitty movie about Dragon Ball...oh wait that's been done

GameGoddess101:

A.) Spell check. Use it. Nuff Said. Either that or read your material before posting, because half the time, I can't understand what you are saying.

:(

...could you be more specific? I'm really particular about my grammar and I can't really see how the original post is horrendously difficult to comprehend in any way.

GameGoddess101:
B.) You certainly have a lot of time on your hands to sit here defending a post about a movie you didn't give a rat's ass about.

I don't really have anything better to do, with me not even being allowed to leave my bed in my current state. (Although I do occasionally, fuck the doctors.) Also, what's said is said, and although it might have been overdone in terms of controversy, I still stand by my statements. Besides, most of the people that I defend it from (god that sounds lame) are building their arguments around misinterpretations or trying (too hard) to create paradoxical statements and contradictions in what I'm saying.

I actually think I see what CMon was talking (Well, I guess typing, if you want to be technical) about. It seemed that a lot of the review was about what the old transformers look like in the new movie, what they did, and insulting everyone who likes the movie. I am just saying not much of it is about the movie, I think I counted four or five spots (Very short spots at that) that talked about the movie alone and didn't compare it to the old transformers, insult the fans of the movie, or Michael Bay.

CMon:

ultimatechance:
Because you were able to perfectly sum up what makes the Yahtzee fanbase (well the idiotic part) so douchebag-like in such a small amount of text.

Oh, I get it, you're saying mostly everyone that likes Zero Punctuation are idiots.

Not true at all. I like Zero Punctuation, but I wouldn't stoop so low to show my love for him by quoting what he says in a seriously unfunny manner.

ultimatechance:
For starters, you did what Yahtzee hates the most, which is sucking up to him (and us in a way) by quoting him.

So the fact that I used a quote of his because I figured it'd fit in the context makes me a suck-up? Yay? Also, what do you mean by "us in a way"? I have no interest in kissing ass with Ben Croshaw just because he's funny, just like I have no interest in kissing ass with Jim Carrey just because he's funny, but most of all I'm not interested in sucking up to you guys. It should be obvious by now that I don't need people on this forum to love me, and especially not people like you, or else I'd not make this thread in fear of stepping on fragile toes such as your own.

You cant deny this, and you know it. If this were any other forum, you wouldn't have made a Yahtzee reference, as people wouldn't get it. However, you are obviously using it here to impress us with your ZP knowledge, as well as offering a form of familiarity in an attempt (a failed one as well) to reach out to us in order to make us think you're funny.

ultimatechance:
Secondly, copying Yahtzee's style when reviewing is frowned upon here on the Escapist, and you pretty much did it proudly with that cute little big book of quotes thing.

Yahtzee's style of reviewing is through fast speaking into a mic, riddled with puns and silly metaphors, supplemented with a comic-ish animation. My "style of reviewing" as you've seen it so far consists of summing up what I'm reviewing, and then playing some, I'll concede at this point, not very good jokes on it. There are hundreds, probably thousands of people that tried being funny while reviewing before people even knew who the bin Yahtzee was. Saying this is Yahtzee's unique way of doing reviews is like saying Michael Jackson invented dance. Oh, and I guess I must have been pretty retarded to assume that everyone in these forums had a brain with enough functionality to grasp that a "big book of quotes" was nothing but some playing around with phrases and words and that you'd understand that I don't keep anything like that under my bed or wherever you keep your fine literature. If you have any, ka-zing.

Michael Jackson may not have invented dance, but he certainly invented his style of dance. This applies to Yahtzee as well, and the fact that you blatantly used something he said to help enhance your review shows that you are using his style, more or less.

Oh, and no shit sherlock. You dont have to explain the little big book of quotes thing. I was taking a crack at how you did such a sad attempt at humor by taking the role of an obsessed Yahtzee fanboy (if one were to have a book of Yahtzee quotes, its pretty much a given) while you are trying to actually prove a point with your "review".

ultimatechance:
And as a personal pet peeve, visual and audible humour translate into a big pile of fail when you type it out in text.

Good thing it's written humor then.

No, it's audible/visual humor disguised as written humor.

ultimatechance:
Hope that answers your question.

Well it does answer my question regarding: "Hm, does this guy really take offense from nothing?" The answer is yes, by-the-woo.

Oh, I see what you did there.

ultimatechance:
PS: Nice avatar

I think so. That image couldn't help but provoke smiles at my face the first couple of dozen times I looked at it, but I'm guessing it makes your face look like a stroke victim. (Seeing as your remarkably negative attitude doesn't allow for you not to be sarcastic with that statement.)
Nice avatar fanboy.

I win, you lose.

ultimatechance:

I win, you lose.

How about "no"?

*yawn*

You're not very good at this are you? I like how your arguments largely can be classified as assumptions. Originally I intended to leave it at this but seeing as replying to this one would take me considerably less time and effort than the first one, why not;

ultimatechance:
Not true at all. I like Zero Punctuation, but I wouldn't stoop so low to show my love for him by quoting what he says in a seriously unfunny manner.

"Fun" is subjective. You're also assuming that the inclusion of a Zero Punctuation quote is for the sole purpose of entertainment.

ultimatechance:
You cant deny this, and you know it. If this were any other forum, you wouldn't have made a Yahtzee reference, as people wouldn't get it.

I believe Yahtzee is pretty well-known in just about any part of the internet, and that including a reference anywhere wouldn't be less constructive than including a 4chan-meme or the likes.

ultimatechance:
However, you are obviously using it here to impress us with your ZP knowledge, as well as offering a form of familiarity in an attempt (a failed one as well) to reach out to us in order to make us think you're funny.

You know you're sad when you do your best (or worst) to rip a lengthy post to shreds for one particular element in it. I found it easier to call him a fanboy through a quotation than just saying it, as it was, in fact, very fitting for the setting. As you're probably aware of, that quote was used during the "Mailbag Showdown" where some hit out at him for his SSBB review, and opened his letter (or whatever) by stating "I am not a fanboy". MovieBob mentions during his review that "this has nothing to do with fanboyism" (or something along those lines, cba to check). So maybe it would have been more appropriate if I had used the paragraph; "this has nothing to do with fanboyism-YES IT DOES. Knuckleheads such as yourself would still shun me even for the similarity.

ultimatechance:
Michael Jackson may not have invented dance, but he certainly invented his style of dance. This applies to Yahtzee as well, and the fact that you blatantly used something he said to help enhance your review shows that you are using his style, more or less.

No. If I use a single dance move by Michael Jackson in a four-minute dance act consisting of various moves, it's not using his style. It's borrowing an element from him.

ultimatechance:
Oh, and no shit sherlock. You dont have to explain the little big book of quotes thing. I was taking a crack at how you did such a sad attempt at humor by taking the role of an obsessed Yahtzee fanboy (if one were to have a book of Yahtzee quotes, its pretty much a given) while you are trying to actually prove a point with your "review".

Isn't it funny how you think that I think that you think you were too stupid to understand that it was nothing but four words in a row? Atleast I think so.

ultimatechance:
No, it's audible/visual humor disguised as written humor.

If you feel that way, why don't you imagine Ben Croshaw's voice narrating in a fast and furious manner then, while playing with some paper cutouts on a yellow backdrop? Because apparently that's how you think it should be.

ultimatechance:
Nice avatar fanboy.

Cool story bro.

- - -

- - -

For the record, I'd say that I'm more influenced by Maddox than by Yahtzee. Just so you know.

CMon:
*snip*

You are definitely one lost cause. I stopped reading after the point you said that the sole purpose of something in your review was not for entertainment (because we all know you used a pretend big book of quotes, and a quote from a comedic series in order try to be anything but entertaining). Beyond that, I am refusing to give a shit anymore, because when you break all this back down to square one, you used a Yahtzee quote in the most laughably bad way I've ever seen, and for that you are a douche lolololololol.

ultimatechance:

*insert generic internet lard*

I think you and me both know that you never gave a shit to begin with, and that your laughable efforts in being provocative gives you more imaginative self-satisfaction than it's actually making me feel offended.

I had a fun time watching you squeek.

CMon:

ultimatechance:

*insert generic internet lard*

I think you and me both know that you never gave a shit to begin with, and that your laughable efforts in being provocative gives you more imaginative self-satisfaction than it's actually making me feel offended.

I had a fun time watching you squeek.

Yeah, you definitely dont seem offended at all.

Oh, and if they were such laughable efforts at being provocative, then why have you insisted on responding in such length and in an insulting manner?

I am better than you in every way possible, get over it.

ultimatechance:

Yeah, you definitely dont seem offended at all.

Oh, and if they were such laughable efforts at being provocative, then why have you insisted on responding in such length and in an insulting manner?

I am better than you in every way possible, get over it.

I find internet trolls to be entertaining to the degree that I can keep feeding them and thus make them say all kinds of stuff. Such as "I am better than you in any way possible".

It might make me a weirdo, but I find it amusing.

Love and hugs,
~CMon the Yahtzee fanboy

Did this review have a purpose other than unmitigated trollery?

am i the only one who thinks that ultimatechance's is a bigger Yahtzee fan boy? cmon, i guess you perverted the image of his great idol by quoting a line from one of his reviews so he insists you apologize or he will hound you with zealous fury.

oh well i liked moviebobs review anyways even though i liked the first transformers. so even though i disagree with your opinion, i can see where you are coming from and why you came to that opinion. also ignore the trolls (as i will) since they are not worth the time to invest any attention on.

CMon:

I find internet trolls to be entertaining to the degree that I can keep feeding them and thus make them say all kinds of stuff. Such as "I am better than you in any way possible".

It might make me a weirdo, but I find it amusing.

Love and hugs,
~CMon the Yahtzee fanboy

Deliberately feeding trolls for amusement makes you a troll yourself. Trolling is, by definition, trying to cause a reaction, and that's exactly what you're doing. Trolling trolls is still trolling.

Whoops, you just lost your credibility.

Sylocat:
Did this review have a purpose other than unmitigated trollery?

The review had no troll-related purpose. Not intentionally, anyhow, if you wish do define the term 'being trolled' as a feeling of being "stepped on", as you wish.

itsmeyouidiot:
Deliberately feeding trolls for amusement makes you a troll yourself. Trolling is, by definition, trying to cause a reaction, and that's exactly what you're doing. Trolling trolls is still trolling.

Quite possible. It's not like they don't deserve a taste of their own medicine once in a while though.

In any case, I personally feel this thread is done and over with. MovieBob has thoroughly explained his view and a little bit more, and I feel I can understand him more now, I have explained my view more thoroughly, and for that I hope other's can understand me more. The troll word-exchange towards the end here were not even related to the topic at hand, and I apologize for contributing to a topic derail (even though it was my thread).

I think we could let this sink now, aye?

mjhhiv:

soulsabr:

mjhhiv:
Your opinion of Transformers 2 is fine, loads of people like it. You've failed to realize that most self-respecting critics have lambasted Transformers as horrible. MovieBob's was just one of the MANY negative reviews of the movie. You're in the minority here. Not MovieBob. Basically, just get over it.

Two words : Blair Witch. Respected critics gave that movie great reviews. Was it good? Did it make sense? Was there even a plot? That's what I thought. Don't use the respected critics argument; critics are bought and paid for pal.

Not the point. I guess critics are also paid to give negative reviews movies? It couldn't be that Transformers 2 is bad? Obviously critics get it wrong; their opinions don't always match up with the public. Frankly, I don't know many people (forget critics) who enjoyed Transformers 2.

And I don't think Blair Witch isn't the best example, anyways. Some critics gave it favorable reviews, others said what you did. Some regular viewers liked it (like me), some didn't. It was a black and white thing. It's not like everyone gave it a great review.

The thing we are all forgetting is: we all have our own opinions. It doesn't matter what I say, you say, or MovieBob says. If you like the movie, great. It just seemed unjust that MovieBob should be labeled a bad critic because you disagree with his opinion.

Nah, I wasn't going on about movie bob. I was more on about using the "respected" critics argument as a reason(good or bad) to lambaste a movie.

My opinion on TF2 is that it was an overall enjoyable experience at the theatre which is what I rate a movie by.

pigeon_of_doom:

soulsabr:

Two words : Blair Witch. Respected critics gave that movie great reviews. Was it good? Did it make sense? Was there even a plot? That's what I thought. Don't use the respected critics argument; critics are bought and paid for pal.

Is Blair Witch a good example of the corruptibility of critics, considering its apparently minuscule budget?

Budget aside, Blair Witch was a horrible film. Can I use it as proof that critics are corrupt; probably not. Are critics corrupt; for the most part, yes. Can I get you hard proof; yea, but I have homework and google is just a click away. Will I stop asking questions ending with a semi-colon; yea, just as soon as I hit post.

soulsabr:
[
Two words : Blair Witch. Respected critics gave that
Budget aside, Blair Witch was a horrible film.

I do actually agree. But I think it's a better example of critic snobbery than corruptibility. And yeah, give the semi-colons a rest for a little bit.

I see how this could cause Moviebob to 'lose his credibility'.
However, even if being a fan of a series means someone can't have a credible review on it, it would only mean that he/she has no credibility for that specific series. all other movies would most likely be watched from a neutral perspective, apparently a part of your strict criteria for being a critic. The way I see it, you should go to different reviewers for different situations.
For example, I personally don't watch zero punctuation to get a 'should I buy this or not?' game review, I watch Zero Punctuation to laugh because Yahtzee is funny as hell. For that I find a reviewer with standards that are closer to my standards. Same here, if you want a neutral review because your some average joe-shmo who has no previous history with transformers, he would go to another Joe-shmo who also has a neutral view and get a review from them. If your a fan however, you might want the review from another fan, like Moviebob, who has similar experiences with the series.
I'll also add that I'm not a transformers fan.
But I am quite fond of Moviebob's reviews and his Overthinker series, and I personally hope he keeps up the good work. I think that the fact that he is a fan of transformers and compares the new movies to the source material does not make him any less credible of a reviewer.