Transformers 4: Will it REALLY be better?

          

          With the upcoming release of “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” I’m honestly not sure what to think about it. On one hand, the introduction of the likable Mark Whalberg to replace the unlikability of Shia Labouf’s character in the third movie is promising. I also have to admit that the dinobots (basically a race of robot dinosaurs) look pretty darn cool. On the other hand, despite the flashy advertising, this is the same franchise that pretty much died off after the first film. The second movie was a disjointed disaster of awful dialogue, abysmal character development, and unbearable toilet humor/racist jokes. The third film was barely better with some better effects, but it was still a horribly written and badly directed lemon with the same bad jokes and underdeveloped characters as the second. Still, several bloggers still feel that this fourth one will DEFINITELY be better than its predecessors. One example that I feel compelled to discuss is Karly Rayner’s recent post on moviepilot.com.

          Now, I respect that she feels that the new installment in the “Transformers” series will be an improvement. However, I feel that the reasons that she gives fail to support her opinion that “Transformers: Age of Extiction” WILL be better than its predecessors.

The first reason that Ms. Rayner gives is that the main villain, Megatron, will be resurrected as a character from the original series named Galvatron, a transformer whose head can transform into a gun. “Galvatron has also been known for carrying a lingering kernel of insanity within his heavily armored self,” says Ms. Rayner, “so there are chances for some unexpected drama from this guy.” With all due respect, just because a compelling character from the original series is being introduced does not change the fact that the character he originated from got little screen time. Between the three movies, Megatron is barely seen. Between all of the human characters’ antics, I can barely remember a single thing Megatron did besides kill the fan-favorite character, Jazz. So at this point, I really could care less that he is being resurrected at all, as I did not get enough time to appreciate his character in the past three films. Sure, a gun for a head is pretty cool but in terms of his character, his resurrection feels too little, too late.

The next thing that Ms. Rayner says made her hopeful for the new installment is director Michael Bay’s promise that the story will be more mature, or as she puts it: “An actual storyline... For adults!” Sure, Michael Bay did tell the Daily Beast, that the new installment will be darker and less childish, but just because he promised something does not mean he will properly deliver on it. In fact, in 2011, Bay made a similar promise during the third film’s production. In an interview with collider.com, Bay said of the third movie that, “What we did with this movie is I think we have a much better script, and we got back to basics. ... It's more serious.” Now, let’s take a look at what he recently told IGN.com about the fourth movie: “"This is a much more cinematic one. I focused on keeping this one slick. There won't be any goofiness in this one. We went a bit too goofy [on the last one].” I don’t know about you, but to me it feels like history is repeating itself. The “serious” elements of the third movie were overshadowed by the bad characters and juvenile humor, and I expect this movie to be the same case.

As a side note, I do side with her third reason that involves the “badass” looking dinobots. It’s not exactly a guarantee that the movie WILL be better than its predecessors, but it is an interesting element that COULD be entertaining. On the contrary, her fourth reason is another one I disagree with.

Rayner rightfully says that the leading ladies of the past two films, Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, had subpar acting abilities, but she also says that actress Nicola Peltz will be a welcome addition to the cast and that “it seems that (she) might actually be able to act as well as look amazing in a pair of hot pants.” She gives Peltz’s performance in the hit series “Bates Motel” as an example of her acting prowess but forgets to mention that she also gave a poor, Razzie-nominated performance in the infamous “The Last Airbender.” Actors that have succeeded in some roles are always prone to error, and can easily give bad performances in other roles. Just look at Will Smith: he is  fine actor, but his performance in last year’s “After Earth” was beyond terrible. Even if Peltz’s performance in the new “Transformers” film is good, it will still not be enough to elevate its quality if it is bad.

Rayner’s final reason that the new “Transformers” film WILL be good is the rumors of Unicron (a fan-favorite character from the original series) being in it. When it comes to Hollywood, it is extremely faulty to trust something that is a rumor. In the past few years, we’ve gotten rumors that Spider Man would appear after the credits to “The Avengers,” and that rapper Lil’ Wayne would star in Pixar’s “The Good Dinosaur.” Though the rumor of Unicron’s appearance does have more credibility, it is still a rumor, and a rumor does not seem like a good reason to say “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will be better than the past films.

Now, despite my lengthy post, I do not wish to come across as a cynical jerk. I am simply saying that Ms. Rayner’s examples do not constitute as proof that the new “Transformers” WILL be better. They may constitute as reasons it COULD be better, but I honestly find her article to be flawed. Who knows? Maybe “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will blow me away, and be the best film in the franchise. Maybe it will even be the best film of the Summer. On the contrary, it seems unlikely, and with respect to Ms. Rayner, her reasons do not guarantee an improvement.


Note: I appreciate the ability to respond to your article, Ms. Rayner and I hope that you respond to it. My only intent with this article is constructive criticism and I wish you the best.