R&B singer Chris Brown has been something of a pariah since the Rihanna assault incident earlier this year. He’s back with a new album, and if you take a look at the cover, it will come as no surprise to our readers that it caught my attention:

Yup, that’s Chris Brown with what appears to be a Terminator-esque metal endo-skeletal hand, not to mention the liquid metal T-1000 spelling the name of the album in the lower right hand corner.

But this Chris Brown/Terminator connection is only the beginning. Some investigation revealed more strange connections in the world of romantically connected R&B singers and science fiction movies with robots. Behold, a Venn Diagram:

See how it all comes together, after the jump:

I bet you KNEW there was a plane crash in this movie. Weird, huh?

When we walk into a theater, we usually know a fair amount about the movie we’re going to see. For instance, I haven’t seen Transformers 2. But from the trailer, I know that Sam Witwicky goes off to college and absorbs some sort of alien code from a mysterious artifact. I know that Optimus Prime fights in a forest, and it probably doesn’t go well for him. (There’s something about the way Shia yells “Optimus!” that reminds me of the way Ewan yells “Noooooooooooo!” in that Star Wars: Episode I trailer I memorized in 1999.) I know that Megatron returns. I highly suspect that the final sequence takes place at the pyramids.

(By the way, someone remind me to make a list of movies in which ancient Egyptians had direct contact with aliens: Transformers 2, Stargate, The Fifth Element…)

This is all right there in the trailer—it’s information the studio wants me to have. Depending on what other movies I went to see, I might have been shown this trailer whether I wanted to see it or not. Being surprised by Megatron’s return just wasn’t an option.

Now compare that to the District 9 trailer. (Warning: D9 spoilers ahead.)

Guest Overthinker André Callot returns with a new perspective on Michael Bay’s Transformers.

The stories of Hinduism are fascinating, and reveal much about the nature of humanity. Unfortunately, many of us in the West were not educated in Hindu tradition, and so we feel alienated from a significant part of the collective unconscious. What should we do to get better acquainted with the nearly one billion Hindus?

We should watch Transformers. 

Official Poster for Michael Bay Hate-fest 2009, aka ZOMG OPTIMUS PRIME

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has arrived in theaters, and to no one’s surprise, Michael Bay has stayed true to form and given us a loud, action-packed summer blockbuster. Also to no one’s surprise, critics have savaged his latest work: the Rotten Tomatoes aggregated review score comes in at a meager 20%. And again, to no one’s surprise, the idiot savants of the blogosphere have, as if by reflex, piled on the Bay hate and lampooned his heavy handed filmmaking techniques and lack of sophistication.

The Overthinkers are by and large of the same opinion: we see Michael Bay movies as the epitome of style over substance, cleavage over character development, and explosions over elegance. He does make a convenient whipping boy for the shortcomings of mainstream commercial cinema these days, and as such he’s been the butt of jokes on several occasions on this site.

That being said, I’d like to use this occation, the release of Bay’s latest fil…er, movie, to take a step back and examine his body of work more objectively. How bad is Michael Bay, really? And how does he compare to some of the greatest directors of our time?

As you’re probably aware, almost any effort to objectively analyze the inherently subjective nature of movie quality involves turning to the vast database of user ratings on IMDb. It’s an imperfect methodology, I know, but it’s better than nothing. This is not the time to argue the merits and meanings of the IMDb user ratings (if you’re interested in such things, you should probably check out this earlier piece of analysis on the topic). This is time to take the data we do have, fire up the Excel, and get to work.

[Note: all IMDb ratings used in this article are current as of June 29, 2009]

Matthew Wrather hosts with Peter Fenzel, Mark Lee, Shana Mlawski (girl!), and John Perich to overthink celebrity deaths (tastefully), celebrity deathmatches (not tastefully), Transformers and the movie critics who love to hate them, favorite Michael Bay movies, and irony (those last two are not related). They take time to mock one listener voicemail and offer a variety of thoughtful perspectives on another.

Tell us what you think! Email us or call 20-EAT-LOG-01—that’s (203) 285-6401. And… spread the overthinking by forwarding this episode to a friend!

Download Episode 52 (MP3)

Matthew Wrather hosts as he, Peter Fenzel, Mark Lee, and Jon Perich overthink 2009’s Summer Movies through June. (Considering that last week they spent a lot of time talking about art, this probably qualifies as going from the sublime to the ridiculous.) Covering:

• Pre-Season: Watchmen, Fast and Furious, The Hannah Montana Movie
• May: X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Star Trek, Angels & Demons, Terminator Salvation, Night At The Museum 2: Battle of The Smithsonian, Pixar’s Up
• June: Land of the Lost, The Taking of Pelham 123, Year One, Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen

Tell us what you think! Email us or call 20-EAT-LOG-01—that’s (203) 285-6401. If you haven’t yet, take the very short survey! And… spread the overthinking by forwarding this episode to a friend.

Download Episode 43 (MP3)

Opening Arguments

Last night I finally saw the 2007 Transformers movie.  It was OK, in a Michael Bay sort of way, but it was very clear that it was made for a very specific audience: young white nerdy men who wish they could bone models after watching them sexily fight robots so sweat cascades down their luscious tanned bodies.  All right, fine.  If you must, Michael Bay.  I’d prefer if you objectified some hot men every once in a while, but I also understand that you think that would make you gay, and you don’t want that, Michael Bay.  I understand.

But then I see this quote from Megan Fox, the actress/model playing main hottie of the film:

“Both of the female characters in the movie were very strong characters. Rachel [Taylor]’s character is very intelligent. I thought that they were representing women very well.”

That’s the last straw.  It’s bad enough that they make movies that objectify women, but then to call those women Strong Female Characters?  I do not think that phrase means what you think it means, Megan Fox.

So you know what I say?  I say screw Strong Female Characters.  What we need now are some Weak Female Characters.  My arguments below the fold…