Transformers: Dark of the Moon has quickly become a box office phenomenon, pretty much just like most of us thought it would. However, what has been surprising is the relatively positive word of mouth the film has earned. After the critical failure of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen expectations were exceedingly low for the third installment. But even with this being the case audiences have seemingly been walking away feeling very satisfied.

Critics have by and large panned Dark of the Moon, amassing only a 37% approval rating on RottenTomatoes.com. On that same site, however, 90% of over 60,000 people voted to say they enjoyed the film. So for those of you who got a charge out of the movie we here at Movie-Thoughts thought it would be interesting to talk about several aspects of it that we weren’t able to fit into our review. Below you can find the conversation that took place between our writers Cliff Bugle and Marisa Carpico. Be sure to send us your comments! We want to hear your thoughts as well.

Cliff Bugle

OK, lets get down to it. To start off I would like to tell you Marisa that in your review I thought your observation of how much the camera objectifies Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was very good. I am curious though, do you think the camera does this differently in this movie than in the other Transformers films?

Marisa Carpico

No, no, not at all. In fact, I think it matches the way Bay filmed Megan Fox. I believe there’s even a similar scene to the one I pointed out in the review in the first film. One of the first images we see of Megan Fox’s character, and I think maybe her first bit of dialogue, shows her leaning over a car engine in a skimpy outfit that reveals her stomach. That scene pretty much has the same function of admiring both the woman and the car in the same moment as the scene in the third film.

Cliff

I agree. But you mentioned in your review that this objectification was tied to the idea of ownership, which I’m liable to agree with. But I don’t see that as much in the previous two films.

Marisa

I suppose that’s true. I would say the end goal of all that objectification in the third film is the idea of male ownership. But perhaps the end goal of it in at least the first is simply the idea of admiration of the female form in the same way the audience is led to admire the machines. Megan Fox is certainly presented more as a beautiful thing to admire rather than a full-fledged character in either film.

Cliff

Well, I can’t disagree with that at all. And I’m sure that’s why Spielberg saw her as being so expendable. Her absence from the third movie wasn’t felt at all. In fact I’m sure plenty of people think Rosie is an upgrade over her even though she’s also nothing but eye candy. Then again, her first profession is being a Victoria’s Secret model.

Marisa

Strangely enough, I felt like there were hints of where Fox was missing in the third film, though I don’t think it was any worse for not having her in it. I think you could easily place Fox’s character right back into the movie without really changing much. I mean, she was a mechanic who knew about cars so she could have conceivably gotten an internship or some smaller role in the Dempsey character’s company. They also could have invented some story about Fox’s character fixing one of his cars and then working her way up through his organization to become an apprentice curator or something like that.

Cliff

Conceivably, but how many people actually remembered her character knew anything about cars? I would suspect not many.

Marisa

I’m sure very few, but it’s common practice in film to briefly recap old storylines and it would have been easy enough to insert some throwaway line about her working with cars. There was plenty of exposition to explain Huntington-Whiteley’s position, certainly the same amount of time could have been spent on Fox.

Cliff

Are you at all offended that the main female roles in these films aren’t more proactive? I mean, Francis McDormand was a nice addition but we’re not exactly supposed to like her, and her involvement is not really that integral to the plot either.

Marisa

I probably should be, but it seems a bit absurd to expect that from these films. If I want to see a strong female character I’ll watch Winter’s Bone again or something. I did, however, find it interesting that unlike Fox’s character (who I don’t think ever influenced the Autobot/Decepticon plot) Huntington-Whiteley’s character did have a moment where she manipulated Megatron into attacking Sentinel Prime. However, female manipulation of a male still isn’t the best way for a female character to be proactive. But really, strong women aren’t the focus of these films. The movie is more geared toward men, with the romance plot and attractive men added to keep female viewers interested.

Cliff

How do you think Sam’s position of living the young American man’s ideal life is different this time around than before?

Marisa

I think the most obvious is that he’s an adult now. In the first film he’s a nerdy high school student silently pining away for a beautiful girl. He then gets that girl because he has the responsibility of handling the alien robots. He’s really just a bystander in the first film. The second film shows him entering college, and with that increase in responsibilities comes more involvement with the robots’ fight against the Decepticons. And then in the third, he’s entering the job market and trying to figure out what he wants to do with his life. By the end, I would say he’s realized his destiny and his fulfillment comes from working with the Autobots.

Cliff

I agree that Sam’s destiny is supposed to be to assist the Autobots, but the end of the third film gives no indication that another entry to the series is forthcoming. If no one else comes along to challenge the Autobots, what destiny does Sam really have? He would be in the same position he was in when he was begging for jobs.

What did you see as the main theme of the movie?

Marisa

Essentially, I think it boils down to a few things. 1. Sam needs to feel fulfilled and that he has control in his life and he does that by working with the Autobots. 2. I think I summed it up in the review in that it’s very much about American ideals like freedom and fighting for what you believe in. I think both of these are linked in that Sam fulfills himself by fighting for a cause. I’m actually curious as to what you think makes the film so patriotic.

Cliff

Well, I think its sense of patriotism is actually more subdued than in the first two. The US military might is conveyed less by showing how impressive our battle ships and jet fighters are and more through how gutsy our soldiers are in small-scale operations (à la Seal Team Six). I don’t see Sam as much of a patriot as I do a guy who simply tries to prove he’s not ineffectual, which is something everyone tries to do.

Marisa

Really!? That’s interesting you find the first two films more patriotic. Why is that exactly? The idea of patriotism is definitely more individually based in the third film, which I think might give it a different emotional impact. The audience has spent time with these characters, so seeing Tyrese or Josh Duhamel represent that military might rather than some lifeless battleship creates a different reaction. And I wouldn’t say Sam is a patriot so much as representing the American dream. He’s more like just another soldier. He fights to protect his right to work and live as he pleases.

Cliff

I think perhaps now “patriotic” isn’t the right word to describe any of the Transformers movies.

Marisa

Perhaps not. What do you think would be a better term?

Cliff

Hard to say. I think perhaps “fireworks” pretty much sums up the trilogy.

Marisa

Haha, I can’t argue with that.

Cliff

What’s disappointing to me, though, is that I can’t yet come up with an overall theme to the trilogy.

Marisa

I don’t know if there is one other than “Explosions and Hot Chicks are awesome.” I suppose you could argue that through Sam the films suggest normal people can make a difference, but that’s probably stretching it.

Cliff

I wouldn’t say stretching it, but it is an overly simple and, if true, belabored notion. I think the movies are simply entries into the cinema of spectacle, which is fine by me because great visuals are what Michael Bay does best. When I see a Bay film I want to be awed by incredible images. Simple as that.

Marisa

Absolutely. Spectacle is absolutely the allure. And I do love his saturated images. The colors are just fantastic.

Cliff

Indeed. Fantastic action sequences have their value, and sometimes that’s all you want. What is a question that a lot of people have asked, though, is will Michael Bay ever get better at telling stories?

Marisa

Not likely, he hasn’t shown any improvement thus far so why start? Also, he knows his strengths. He’s good at stunning visuals and explosions, and there’s nothing wrong with that. He’s making entertaining films, not awards bait. He makes great summer action films, and making films that are so entertaining to so many people is a skill all its own.

Cliff

It’s certainly an underappreciated skill for many people. But what I can’t stand is how if I don’t like a Bay movie I get accused for being a snob and not thinking that his kind of movies have value. Such accusations usually come about during awards season, as if a movie’s entertainment value is its only worth and films like The King’s Speech don’t deserve Best Picture. As if!

Marisa

Granted, I think there’s also the prejudice that if you LIKE his films then you have bad taste. As if a movie being more entertainment than art automatically makes it inferior.

Cliff

Exactly. But we won’t get into the merits of “Art” right now; we’ll save that for a later conversation.

What about the third film’s Sentinel Prime character? Despite how the film portrays him, do you think his motivations are understandable?

Marisa

Strategically? Yes. He did what he thought necessary to ensure their survival. But he’s villanized in the film because he does something that could be perceived as cowardly. I think this might tie back into the patriotism discussion from above. Rather than fight to the bitter end even when defeat seems imminent, like our human heroes, he gives up and makes a deal with the other side. He does what’s smart rather than what would be considered right or brave.

Cliff

But is cowardliness excusable if the case was that the Transformers didn’t end up on earth and instead on some barren planet? I think in that case he would have been hailed as a savior of the species and not a villain.

Marisa

That would all depend on whether the Autobots and Decepticons got along. If Megatron still wanted to kill the Autobots then a threat against any other living organism would be irrelevant. If they were bent on each other’s mutual destruction regardless of a third party then I think the idea of cowardice or strategy still applies.

Cliff

So you don’t think a contempt for humans factors into the equation that much?

Marisa

Not really, no. That might be a way of making it clear to the audience that Sentinel Prime is a villain. Maybe if you were to take the humans out of it and take away the audience’s identification with the Autobots and pretend this is the first film in a series, things might be different. In that situation, Sentinel Prime might look like the hero and the Autobots might look stupidly independent. But all this is hypothetical so really who knows?

Cliff

Alright then. I think we can call it a day on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. I’d say we covered a lot of the important topics.

____________________________________________________________

If we failed to address anything you thought was vital, by all means let us know in the comment section below.

One Response to “A Conversation About ‘Transformers 3′”