With Transformers coming out soon I want to know why there is this negative feelings toward Michael Bay?

I personally love his movies and enjoy a good action movie when done well. Armaggeddon (spelling probably way off) there was not a dry eye in the theater when Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis) took his noble death. Bad Boys movies fun action movies. The Rock, The Island, and yes I even liked Pearl Harbor. With the exception of The Island and maybe Pearl Harbor they all have performed well and two have a Critien Collection of DVD. So what's the deal?

When I looked up Michael Bay as producer and director I was surprised by how little he has actually accomplished compared to a number of other popular producers and directors. Strangely enough, his few movies that have been box office successes has propelled his name into the larger than life image and apparently he gets more credit good or bad than perhaps he deserves. The action/thriller movies that he is known for aren't considered dramatically sophisticated enough for award recognition. Like comedy, perhaps action/thrillers may have a stigma attached to them in regards to talent where the action, special effects, thrills get more attention that the performances of its actors and directing style. Based on his portfolio, Michael Bay has yet to prove himself in cinema with more movies and extending into other more "serious" genres if he isn't to be simply labeled as a summer entertainment, box office producer/director.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
Based on his portfolio, Michael Bay has yet to prove himself in cinema with more movies and extending into other more "serious" genres if he isn't to be simply labeled as a summer entertainment, box office producer/director.

But, on one level, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Maybe that's all he wants to do. If so, then he's probably happy.

quote:

Trekscribbler
Upwardly Mobile Participant
Posted 01 June 2007 11:28 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
Based on his portfolio, Michael Bay has yet to prove himself in cinema with more movies and extending into other more "serious" genres if he isn't to be simply labeled as a summer entertainment, box office producer/director.
But, on one level, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Maybe that's all he wants to do. If so, then he's probably happy.

Your comment is likely appropriate to a number of independent filmmakers who decide to avoid making a big movie. If you are correct, Michael Bay is probably one of the happiest directors around because he won't have to sacrifice his primary interest for compromising to appeal to something he isn't really interested in doing. The few movies that have had good boxoffice results have reflected good action/thrillers that don't ususal garner critical acclaim.

I just can't take Michael Bay seriously and I find his films entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

The depiction of San Fransico in 'The Rock' is so heavy handed it's hilarious. I'm from the UK and visited San Francisco a few years back. At Alcatraz, the guide talks about The Rock before you go in and stresses that it is totally inaccurate. I realise that it's all fantasy, but you'd think someone would have at least done a little homework to make the film believable. However, it's unintentionally very funny and I enjoyed it.

I was astonished by Armageddon. It was very OTT & I couldn't stop laughing. Rumour has it that Trey and Matt of South Park fame wanted to remake the whole film using puppets (an idea which became Team America).

I certainly don't hate Michael Bay, but I find his films hard to believe and I rarely sympathise with any of the characters, because the whole thing is so dumb. I tend to view them as comedies.

Didn't he also remake Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or was he just the producer?

I love Michael Bay movies ! Well, most of them anyway . If there are two things you can expect from his films, it's there will be plenty of action & the explosions will be big & beautiful! Honestly, "Pearl Harbor" was a terrible film, but once the Japanese planes showed up in Hawaii, ALL ACTION! That was the only moment I was looking forward to & I wasn't disappointed. I don't think he really expects to be taken seriously. Look at his filmography:
"Bad Boys"
"The Rock"
"Armageddon"
"Pearl Harbor"
"Bad Boys 2"
"The Island"
"Transformers"

Do any of these movies scream "Oscar!"? Nope, just mindless Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure. That's a problem some people have with him, I guess. Some want more than a rollercoaster ride & those are the only tickets he'll sell. I wouldn't say they HATE him, they just don't respect him. At least until he goes against the grain & pulls out a dramatic piece. But, I really don't see that happening.

People don't like Micheal Bay Because:
1. His films lack any substance whatsoever.
2. They have no character development (In most of his films the characters exist solely to advance the plot to the next explosion or elaborate chase scene).
3. He is heavy-handed and lacks even the slightest bit of subtlety (Pearl Harbor especially)
4. His films are filled with extremely tired cliches.
5. Basically to many critics and people his films represent the apex of shallow, mindless entertainment that fills up the local multiplex.

Personally I think there are plenty of filmmakers equally terrible. They just don't get the same amount of attention.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
If you are correct, Michael Bay is probably one of the happiest directors around because he won't have to sacrifice his primary interest for compromising to appeal to something he isn't really interested in doing.

Well, yes and no, I guess. I think you're making my point. The last stat I read (I forget where) was that the average project -- from start to completion -- sits in a director's queue for 18 to 36 months. If you have to commit that much of your life to a project, then why not just do what you do? Some directors are all cookie cutter, and I think Michael Bay falls largely into that mold. If he's happy, then he's happy. I wouldn't say that he's sacrificing anything to just do what he does. He hasn't done enough interviews that I've read to be aware of any major 'lifesong' project he's dying to bring to the screen, so why not just shuck one flash-n-pop spectacular after another? He still manages to find employment.

To Duncan Black, his production company has produced alot of horror remakes that have been really bad, Texas Chainsaw and Hitcher being two of them.

There seems to be this notion that to get credit for being a good director he has to do something serious. Since when is drama the only genre to be taken seriously. I'm not a director by any means nor do I know much about how a movie is made but I would think directing a big budget action movie is a difficult job for a director. There seems to be alot going on that would need his attention.

From what I'm hearing the only way a director can get respect is if he directs a serious drama. What a boring depressing world that would be if that is all we were treated to at the theaters. I thank Bay for his so called mindless and shallow movies entertaining me.

I think Alien proved that dumb subject matter can make for a first rate movie, but Bay hasn't managed to realise the concept.

The premise for Alien is really stupid. An intergalactic monster kills off the crew one at a time - that's about it. However, Ridley Scott managed to turn it into something very special - possibly one of the best films of all time. He took a 'low art' idea and fused it with high art production values and casting. He also used our preconceptions of stereotypes to put twists on the story (hence the debates about Ripley being a feminist icon). All very clever stuff.

Michael Bay doesn't seem to care for exceeding the audience's expectations and whilst I can sit back, laugh and munch my way through a bag of popcorn, the whole experience is very predictable and I usually forget about the film in a matter of days.

I can only remember a few things about The Rock. There's a badly disguised stunt man in a wig dressed as an old granny near the beginning. I also noticed that Nicholas Cage's ears look like they're stuck on upside down (IT'S TRUE! - Check it out) and I remember there being a shot of a Volkswagon Beetle painted in psychedelic colours to emphasise San Francisco's 'hippy culture' (even though San Francisco doesn't have a hippy culture anymore). Other than that I just remember a lot of funny explosions and shouting.

It just didn't do anything different. That's not to say I hate Michael Bay at all, but he definitely makes throw-away bubblegum cinema. I still maintain it's very amusing but why people go as far as to hate it, I'm not sure.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Black,

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
He took a 'low art' idea and fused it with high art production values and casting.

I've mentioned Quentin Tarantino also being pretty good at taking B-movie concepts and elevating them to A-list movies.

Personally speaking, I don't hate Michael Bay. If you really must hate random famous people, that's why truly despicable characters like Gary Glitter or OJ Simpson are available. If you really must.

However, I can understand why people, ahem, object mildly to his work. It's completely soulless, utterly throwaway, and thoroughly ridiculous, for the most part. In fact, in terms of plot and character development, Bay demonstrates something approaching contempt, as if he's almost taunting people with the fact his films are so mindless.

Now, I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that. My ex-flatmate, for example, only ever watches this kind of film. Big explosions, huge gunfights, 20 minute long car chases... he can't get enough, and again, if you're one of the people who loves these kind of films, then Michael Bay is your man. Few directors are as adept at shooting action sequences, to give him his due.

It's just that his films are lacking in almost every other department. So people, and there are many of them, who look for something more in their films (and action films can be intelligent, or original, or have interesting multi-dimensional characters), are not going to find them in a Mikey Bay blockbuster. So his popularity takes a nosedive.

All that said... I'll probably go see Transformers. I mean, come on... giant robots fighting? Tch... count me in!

quote:

Originally posted by Borachon:
All that said... I'll probably go see Transformers. I mean, come on... giant robots fighting? Tch... count me in!

I'll buy the popcorn.

Because action blockbusters don't have to be cliched, over-the-top nonsense like Armageddon. Just look at Minority Report and Terminator 2 … but I suppose it is a bit unfair comparing Michael Bay to Stephen Spielberg and James Cameron.

Anyway I though "The Rock" was OK mainly because of Sean Connery and Ed Harris, despite all that slow motion and bombastic music. I can't comment on Pearl Harbour, but The Island was the biggest piece of cinematic turd I have seen in a while.

Now I will get off my high horse, and admit that I will probably go see Transformers, even though it looks like Independence Day with giant robots and no Jeff Goldblum.

You know a director isn't very good when if you were to take away the special effects then there would be no substance left.Bay falls into this category.
He can't even do big special effect epics well, spielberg is co-proudcing transformers so it might be watchable.

I'll probably go see "Transformers" only for nostalgic reasons. I thought it was the best of the "shit that turns into other shit" cartoons when I was 9.

I don't particularly care either way when it comes to Michael Bay, but I am excited to see Transformers. The trailers look pretty cool, and like ericg, if you're a boy between the ages of 28 and 33, Transformers were probably your coolest toys.

He drains the potential importance from every image he conveys. Whereas prominent themes could underlie his films, he hides them under thick layers of fiery explosions. I don't deny his potential, but what's the use if he lacks patience?