naw you di'an't

refering to transformers:
(2:22:26 AM) hoho xD: better then pirates or spiderman 3
(2:35:41 AM) iSIYU: could you love albert more
(2:37:11 AM) iSIYU: he didn't even notice your facebook got deleted
dumbass.

Personal Conflicts
I think its time I finally make up my mind about Transformers. On the one hand it was probably the most talked about special effects work of the year, on the other hand it was a shallow, shallow movie. So here's where I'm conflicted, the more people care only about special effects, the easier it will be for me to find a job in two years, but it also means movies of lower quality will proliferate. Special effects/CG/whatever you want to call it should rarely, if ever take precedence over story and characterization, when that happens a movie becomes little more than a tech demo. Obviously as someone who would like to one day call himself a "digital artist" this seems counter-productive, but (and this is my shower epiphany) shouldn't the people who make special effects understand that more? When CG is used correctly (LOTR) it elevates a film and makes it more compelling. When used excessively, or when it becomes the sole selling point of a movie (Matrix), even the most technically proficient CG becomes tedious, and makes the audience adverse to computer graphics on the whole.

Spiderman 3 vs Transformers
Lets be serious, comparing Michael Bay to Sam Rami is like comparing Entertainment Weekly to National Geographic. Actually, maybe National Inquirer and Newsweek makes for a better analogy. I'm not saying Michael Bay is incompetent (that I reserve for Brett Ratner) merely a director with little range and even less depth. Like the National Inquirer Bay is prone to throw any idea that will grab people's attention in his production with little understanding of the source or the subjects. From the trailers to the acting to even the set/robot designs everything about Transformers just felt like a generic action film. Well, a generic action film with a lot of post-production lens flare. Also I don't think the writers had any idea of what this film was supposed to be, if this film was supposed to show the war between the Autobots and the Decepticons continuing on Earth, Shia LeBouf was overused. If it was supposed to be a personal movie about all this insane shit happening to this one guy, the macro level stories about the government and the Australian girl thinking Fourier Series are obsolete, were overkill. Either way it was a movie of excess which is exactly what you get with Michael Bay, while he may never make anything better at least you know he's consistent, just like the level of integrity of National Inquirer. Rami has obviously demonstrated some sort of journalistic integrity and what you get with him is for the most part the whole story. I will try to consider only Spiderman 3 as comparing 1 or 2 to Transformers would just be unfair. While Spiderman 3 was not the perfect film, nor an especially good one, it was not flawed at the fundamental level. Spiderman 3 was a movie that had maybe 20 minutes worth of film that could have been cut. Obviously nobody looking for too much depth would watch Spiderman 3 to scratch that itch, or pick up a Newsweek for that matter. A little more effort went into making Spiderman 3, in terms of crafting the character and the world. You could say it was lazy to stay so faithful to the story of the comics, but the worse thing is to make the story and characters generic.

Oh yeah, Jon deleted his facebook last week. (and he also uses 'then' interchangeably with 'than')