John Scalzi - Relax! Transformers Is Not the End of Cinema as We Know It


Here's a rather despairing e-mail I received this week:
"I am of the opinion that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is proof of the total demise of the art form known as 'cinema.' Tell me I'm wrong. Also, tell me how a movie based on toys actually qualifies as science fiction."
So the question becomes whether the filmmakers are interested in doing that hard work, which anyone who has seen the first Transformers will know they are not. Screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci are good at snark and humor, but their acquaintance with actual science is iffy at best (see: The latest Star Trek, which is fun but has wincingly awful science). As for director Michael Bay, he has yet to direct a movie that can be described as anything but deeply and arrogantly dumb. It's mildly terrifying, in fact, that the first Transformers is likely the most clever movie he's ever made (hat tip to Kurtzman and Orci here).
Now, it's entirely possible that Bay, Kurtzman and Orci (and Ehren Kruger, who is added on as a screenwriter), have actually managed to get the science and the logic of this latest Transformers movie to the point that it's reasonable science fiction. Given their various track records, however, it seems highly doubtful.
And, of course, why should they? The first Transformers made over $700 million worldwide, Michael Bay has been outrageously successful making one profoundly stupid movie after another, and Kurtzman and Orci's complete disregard of logic and science certainly hasn't stopped them from writing highly successful science fiction. For these filmmakers there is no downside to writing and directing bad scifi (well, except for The Island).The audience for Transformers doesn't actually care if the science tracks; they're there for the spectacle.
Which gets us to the first point. I understand my correspondent's despair that the studio that once released The Godfather is reduced to highlighting a movie based on children's toys as its highest achievement for the year. But let's also point out that while The Godfather was the highest grossing movie of 1972, making it both a critical and commercial smash, the number two flick that year was The Poseidon Adventure, which was the sort of brain-free, effects-laden popcorn shoveler that the Transformers movies are today. Also in the twenty top grossing movies of 1972: The Getaway (arguably Sam Peckinpah's worst), The Valachi Papers (an uninspired Charles Bronson action flick), The Cowboys (one of John Wayne's later and lesser movies), Skyjacked (another disaster picture starring Charlton Heston) and... Deep Throat. Yes, the porno.
So while not excusing the Transformers filmmakers for very likely making a loud and dumb flick, it should be noted that "loud and dumb" -- i.e., spectacle -- has been packing theaters for as long as there's been cinema with sound. Trust me, if someone could have made exploding CGI robots in the '30s, '50s or '70s, they certainly would have. And while today's movie distribution dynamic privileges loud and dumb flicks over quiet and thoughtful ones, it's also worth noting that filmmakers are nevertheless managing to make smart and spectacular movies, too: see The Dark Knight and WALL-E from last year. Which is to say smart filmmakers adapt to the market that exists and manage to make good pictures regardless.
So, no: Transformers is not the end of cinema as we know it. Going to see it may kill off a few brain cells, but it won't kill off filmmaking. Promise.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.










T:RotF is loud, stupid, effects filled and FUN! It's got giant robots blowing the crap out of each other, and it's well delivered, well paced, superbly made fun. In science terms it is made of fail, but it is delivered in a way that doesn't make you want to stop and think about the science.
proof of the total demise of the art form known as 'cinema.'
This has been said about every bad-but-heavily-promoted movie for as long as I can remember.
I haven't seen the sequel yet, trapped in a hotel room in Jacksonville, Florida without a theater in sight (and I've looked, believe me), but I've seen the first one--several times. Granted, I have two sons, age 11 and 15, which makes me lean toward the, Okay, let's go see these, side of the equation. Still, I don't think we should underestimate the appeal of watching giant robots (from outer space!) kick the crap out of each other and a lot of real estate. Megan Fox is something of a bonus.
But, as my oldest son said: Come on! It's giant robots fighting! What more could you want?
If Will Ferrell picking a fight with Grumpy in LAND OF THE LOST didn't destroy cinema (just a few studio execs' careers), milking last year's CG robot fest for a sequel sure as hell won't.
Besides, what about MILK last summer. Don't think there's another one in the can, kids?
Sorry, I'll go back and read the article in a minute... but first:
Retcon = Retroactive Contradiction, doesn't it?
Wasn't it the practice of replacing canon with new canon that fits your story better? (Or sometimes just works better in a general sense).
Backfilling a story from a toy (or current state of canon) ought to have some other name.
That said, I can go back and read your article, be right with you dear!
THe short version: Transformers is not the end of cinema as we know it, because cinema has always been full of dumb movies.
What we have is people remembering the great movies that come out once in a blue moon and forgetting all the crap they had to watch in between. Then when they go see a crappy movie today all they can compare it to is the few movies they remember, the great ones.
Most movies land in the "forgetable middle". I have a long list of favorite movies. I have a short list of movies I hated. And everything else is quickly forgotten.
Greyface: Retroactive Continuity, actually.
My real pet peeve is: why does Prime need lips? They look ridiculous and he's clearly not actually using them to pronounce things.
Not yet having seen this movie (my wife and I will probably wait for DVD as we did on the first one) I must say that I was completely shocked at the entertainment value of the first installment.
I think I tend to like movies more when I go into them expecting one thing and get something entirely different in return. The Mummy was a good example of this as I was expecting a super cheese filled horror flick and instead got a great comedy out of it. The Transformers was in the same vein for me. Expected to see a cheese action flick based on one of my favorite childhood programs and instead got a very fun filled comedy with some action, and Meagan Fox thrown in to boot.
That being said though, I imagine that this Transformers will probably do about what The Mummy Returns did for me, amuse me slightly but not be nearly as fun as the first was. Why? Because I'll be expecting it this time.
There is a lot to be said for the surprise factor...and that's that.
... and... Deep Throat. Yes, the porno.
OK, my question is whether DT counts as science fiction. Linda Lovelace does play a mutant after all...
I don't know if I would say Transformers was Michael Bay's most clever movie -- I would rate The Rock higher than either Transformers movie. Even as cheesy as Armageddon and Bad Boys were, I'd probably rate them higher as well.