To be fair, I suspect many people went to see Transformers 2 based on their impression about the first movie and were probably all very disapointed...

Speaking of goofs and factual errors, did anybody else spot this one ?
In many of the shots taking place on the slopes of the Great Pyramid (the one with some of the casing remaining on the tip), the same Great Pyraid with the casing on the tip appears in the background...

How could they possibly have missed that ?

Cheers

Nico

What was the point of the AllSpark in the second one? They get it, the Decepticons try to get it from Megan, but why? It seems they ultimately forget about it later.

I'm also lost why they were trying to have the "survival of the race", when it is obvious that the AllSpark still works in slivers.


SPOILER:



That movie just sucked.

Something else i want to know, what are the robots morphing limitation ? in the cartoon i guess it was to make cool toys, but in the movie if they came from a planet that IS NOT EARTH, why the hell do they look like cars, bike, helicopters,etc and keep that look when they get back into their "normal selfs" ?? makes no sense.....



yeah that says a lot. then people complain about movies......

From the first movie, you see the autobots arrive on Earth and you briefly see them in their original Cybertron form. They assume the shape of cars and trucks because that's what would disguise them effectively from humans since those vehicles are well known to humans and they wont think twice if they spot one of them.

Even if no one is driving them or they are transforming into huge robots they are still incognito?

On balance, all movie reviews could just be- explosions, great, story- incoherent, but it doesn't matter. A + film.

Where you draw the line is up to you- if ultimately an incoherent, corny story is propped up by larger than life CGI, then you can 'take it for what it is'- however, you wouldn't subscribe to that in every instance.

You could after all make a Pearl Harbor flick and lousy it up entirely with a gratuitous, superfluous love story, cardboard characters and a clinical, generic feel about war- hey, wait a minute..

Critics criticize films- that's what they do. You can take their viewpoints and balance them with what you like or expect to see.

Personally, I think Michael Bay sucks- I think his films suck, there are film students who have made more interesting and entertaining films with smaller budgets than his soulless tripe. Simply having the money and near inexhaustible backing from major studios doesn't in itself create a better experience- it may even cause these types of block buster directors to get lazy once they've stumbled onto the formula which churns out bank, but will never win critical praise, but what happens are those people who point out that after a while, these films tend to feel like the same experience as any other in this class are viewed as elitists like film critics.

i say besides bumblebee wich i want a high fidelity toy, i was rooting for decepticon,i think autobots are traitors for dooming their own race over a bunch of monkeys
and why is their planet doomed anyway since there are a bunch of stars to pick

Saw it today, and personally I loved it. I left my brain at the door and just took it for what it is, but to me, a highly enjoyable film.

Any constructicons? I love them.

I never had any high expectations, consequently... I enjoyed it a lot . However, I really don't feel like seeing it again. Nor do I feel like talking about plot holes or thinking/discussing the story seriously.

I enjoy the Billy and Mandy show, some episodes of the Powerpuff Girls, fairly odd parents, Jimmy neutron etc... and a lot of other cartoons. This movie is parked in my brain near these TV shows and I enjoyed myself watching it.