Killing Michael Bay (1 Viewer)

[KatieL]

Seth's post describes my feelings of this....



No, I think it proved the exact opposite

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Uh what Seth said...but I will say that I really liked the "hand-held" zoom-in shots in AOTC's final battle. I thought they worked in generating documentary style visual energy in a largely static-by-nature CG battle.

-Dennis

 

[Ron-P]

Hi, my name is Ron, I like Michael Bay films.

 

[Mike Graham]

Bay's The Rock was great, and so was Woo's Face/Off. However, Bay started to take himself very, very seriously, while Woo just can't find a decent script these days.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Alright, smart ass mode off then Adam.

That is a problem with online forums, well two problems really. One, you don't know the age of the person unless they tell you, and even then its easy to forget. And two, its easy to mix the format with the people involved. The process is so similar that its easy to let that be the primary "identity" of the place.

That's one reason why in-person meets help out at the HTF I think. It can be pretty odd putting the real person together with the opinions for the first time, and rather surprising as well.


As for the other major talk sites, one is famous for its over-hyped BS, especially the "star" writer at the site. And the couple of others I can think of are good only as reference points for movie info (the site you have in mind) or for compiled film reviews (the veggie place).

The chats appear to be totally unregulated which makes it pointless. Far too easy for a good post to be ruined by 20 trolls.


Back to Bay, I do like The Rock though not as much now that it has come to be the limit of his work which is repeated time and again. It's slickness at the time had a sense of fun, and of course it was a pretty good turn as a star vehicle. When I watch it now some of the Bruck stable trademarks annoy me because they stand out thanks to the repetition, but then that's even true of Bruck's Beverly Hills Cop 2 helmed by Tony Scott. Don't get me started on Top Gun and Days of Thunder. The use of color filtering the sky to that smokey red or steely blue just gets old fast when it serves no point other than to look good.

When I first saw The Rock it did look good, which made it appealing. It seemed interesting to take a gritty story and gloss it up. Looking back it becomes more obvious that none of that was a plan, glossy is just how he does things period. Makes it less charming.

It's also troubling that Bay allows himself to be dominated by Bruck to the point that his work matches the work of all the other weaker Bruck directors. Tony Scott does allow the visual style to creep in (much worse back with Top Gun, he seems to have matured as a director over time), but his films feature better shots and much better editing for story pace. It's a big reason why Enemy of the State is one of the more enjoyable Bruck productions to me. Scott is still a bit too poppy for my taste, but he's much more mature than Bay in his approach, at least over the last decade he has been.

Well the point is to make it obvious, not to set the bar so high that its "Lean or shit".

A work with less famous scenes or not as clearly outstanding usually ends up as a bad example because then not everyone sees it or agrees with it, or they even get off on a tangent arguing about some other point not relevent.

I believe in using the extreme to establish that there is in fact some other side to things. Where the line is between those two points usually falls into a gray area. So you stake out the far side and then walk back toward the middle till you start to recognize what appears to be the gray area and you leave that area to opinion. Some will think left and others right and no arguing will settle it, but at least everyone will agree that there is a left and right.

Bay is on the left, Lean is on the right. The thread could go for miles trying to decide where everyone else falls.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Personally, I think what sets The Rock apart from Bay's other films (it's the only one I really like) is the quality of the actors involved. It would be hard to make a truly terrible film with talent like Sean Connery, Ed Harris and Nicolas Cage (although I guess that argument falls apart when you consider Sphere with Hoffman, Stone and Jackson ).

Seth's post sums up what's wrong with Bay's films. I will add that the dialogue can be attrocious at times, too -- see Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. This goes hand in hand with Seth's comments on Bay's films being more about the shot than the story. After all, why care about dialogue when we have all these things blowing up and all this really cool camera movement?

 

[Lew Crippen]

In almost any post Seth ever made, I could find a point with which to take at least minor issue (mostly because a typical Seth post makes about 37 points).

In this case I am in agreement with his posts.

I would add that I actually somewhat like The Rock and I consider Armageddon well worth watching for its style and approach. As everyone knows, Michael Bay got his start making commercials, and if any movie ever took this approach, Armageddon does—I’m not much more impelled to watch a Bay movie than I am a commercial.

Actually I just found something of Seth’s with which I might not be in full agreement—the last point in post #25.

 

[Paul.S]

Seth et al.:

Although it could be argued that it is largely attributable to Jonathan Hensleigh's late night, drunken conversations with Don Simpson (see Charles Fleming's terrific High Concept) and Connery's heavy involvement in the development of the script, Gen. Francis Hummel is a major exception to the general character critique you make in (enumerated) paragraphs 1 and 2 in your post #9.

Also, with significant exceptions (one of which is Jim Cameron's body of work IMO), I think it could be argued that--for better or worse--the kind of character development you are seemingly making a case for is simply not always necessary for a contemporary action genre picture to be rousingly successfully, both narratively and in terms of box office.

-p

 

[ThomasC]

If only Bay could find a decent script that would still allow him to blow stuff up...

 

[RobertR]

If only Bay (and the industry in general) cared about finding decent scripts, instead of spending so much time and energy on sound and visual FX, explosions, 40 foot trailers for the stars, etc.

 

[Ruz-El]

An eye opener for me in this thread is that I disliked "Con Air" so much, I have relegated it to "Michael Bay" movie in my mind, so when Seth pointed out in the above posts that it was a Simon West movie, I was actually surprised!

Michael Bay is the only director that actually leaves me feeling pissed off that I waisted time watching his movie. The Rock was about the only one I've ever thought of watching again. That said, I did like the Texas Chainsaw remake, so I guess I can't go by the "Michael Bay is the Shit Midas" rule anymore, although I'm sticking with my "If Bay and Bruck are in the credits, than I'm avoiding it" rule.

 

[Ted Lee]

sits next to ron....

"hi, my name is ted. i like jerry bruckheimer movies too!"

i'm sorta with adam on this one. you simply *cannot* go into a bay/bruckheimer (from hereon, known as "bb") film expecting a whole lot ... other then action. anyone who expects more is kidding themselves.

bb have found a formula that (clearly) works. it's generally accepted that the general movie audience likes stuff blowed up real good. the louder and more spectacular, the better the movie.

also, htf members generally have higher expectations. take a look at seth ... he just doesn't seem the kind of guy who likes bb movies. and, obviously, bb isn't making the movie for him. they're making it for that particular demographic.

there's nothing wrong with bb movies per say. i'm not a real fan myself (i did like armageddon), but they certainly appeal to a wide audience.

 

[chris winters]

BB movies also appeal to worldwide audiences, helping profits. A car blowing up in english in surprising similar to a car blowing up in chinese.

 

[Paul.S]

Ted et al.:

I'm glad you italicized "generally." But I still think it merits mention that one of the problematics that inheres in this approach is that we quickly slide down the slippery slope of elitist hierarchizing of various kinds of film production and film audiences.

I'm more comfortable with saying different, as opposed to "higher," expectations.

I know you were using the term "demographic" loosely, Ted, but demography traditionally and typically--and film marketing is no exception--deals with socioeconomic class/income, gender, "race"/ethnicity and age. Jerry's fond of saying he's "in the transportation business." In other words, he makes movies that take you somewhere.

I'm more comfortable with saying that his pictures are for any and all who are willing to go along for the ride than they are for a particular demographic group. I don't think Jerry would hire Joel Schumacher--hardly an auteur--to direct a picture like Veronica Guerin if demography ruled the filmmaking day for him as a producer. Check out the arguments Will Smith and Michael had about the rating of Bad Boys II on the DVD's supps.

I'm a 30-something guy who's fave film is Ordinary People. Bad Boys II was on my top 10 list last year, right beside Dirty Pretty Things.

-p

 

[Adam Portrais]

When I went into Bad Boys II I didn't know that it was two and a half hours. Nor did I think it felt like a two and a half hour movie. Did the plot make total sense? No. Was the acting top notch? Not really. And did I once look at my watch wondering "When the hell is this going to end?" ? NO! Bad Boys II grabbed me with it's fun shoot 'em up story and the cool way in which it was told (yeah, I said it).

I think sometimes it's just fun to turn to the person you went to the movie with and say "Holy, shit that was cool!" And come on, what other director would think of doing an action movie that comes close to the two hour mark, much less two and a half. It grabbed my attention and didn't let go until the end (Unlike Van Helsing, where I was checking my watch around an hour and a half of this over two hour so-so fest).

I will leave this post with a quote from John Woo's Face/Off that I think sums up the action genre:
"...we'll blow shit up, it's more fun." - Castor Troy

 

[ThomasC]

Although I thought Bad Boys II was decent, I could've done without the corpses and I think something should've been cut, because two and a half hours is a bit much for an action movie. It was much better on DVD, where I was able to skip to what I wanted to watch.

Also, there's something about Michael Bay that can't be said about a lot of directors: You can't find any of his movies on DVD in pan and scan.

 

[JohnRice]

Oh Man! Are you watching the wrong movies, Robert. The truth is, for every 100-200M FX laden, mind number of a movie, there are at least 10 with something out of the ordinary to offer. The way to find them? Do a little reading and when you go to the video store look at the spaces between the 1,000 copies of Mind Numbing IV: Return of the Brain Dead. In there you will find a nearly endless supply if small, interesting films like Pieces of April, Magdalene Sisters, 21 Grams, In America, Shattered Glass, My Life Without Me, May, Dirty Pretty Things, Morvern Callar, Wonderland, Triplets of Belleville, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Heaven, 25th Hour, Far From Heaven, Frailty, The Good girl, Punch-Drunk Love, Secretary, Spider, Lost in Translation, 28 Days Later, Whale Rider, Dummy, Melvin goes to Dinner...

Shall I go on?



Plus, fun and action movies don't have to be completely formula. I'll spare you all another list.

 

[Ron-P]

You see, this is exactly why I enjoy his films so much, for exactly what you said here Robert. Films like these are why I built a dedicated HT room.

I don't need an 85" FP image and 5.1 surround for B&W films, classics, independent or romance movies. Action movies are why I have what I have and I hope they continue to be made.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I certainly don’t have anything nearly up to your standards Ron (other than perhaps the beer in my cooler), but I do sometimes ask myself about the wisdom of the money spent on my sound system when all of the sound comes from the center channel.

Even though I don’t have a front projector, I’d still think that it would be awesome for classic films as well as the latest from B&B.

 

[RobertR]

You and I have different priorities, Ron. I also have a FP setup with 5.1 sound, but the way I see it, the technology serves the movies, not vice versa. When I watch a movie with good subwoofer effects and surround sound, it's only interesting to me if it's done in support of a good, well directed, well acted story. I said this about Bad Boys II: If all you want is to have a big image with 5.1 effects, why even bother with the pretense of telling a story? Why not just edit together endless explosion/CGI scenes and forget about a script, etc.? There are enough good movies with excellent cinematography and 5.1 effects for me to watch that I hardly feel like my 5.1 setup isn't being put to good use if I don't bother to watch a Michael Bay film.

I also disagree that a great FP setup is wasted on B&W films, classics, independent or romance movies. It's absolutely wonderful to watch films such as Casablanca or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre on a big screen with excellent picture quality. It brings me a big step closer to the theatrical experience. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Give me the mono, B&W, made-with-comparatively "bad" FX The Day the Earth Stood Still over a Michael Bay FX fest any day, because it's such a marvelous story, script, and filled with interesting ideas.

By the way, I know you're a big Tim Burton fan. Does your statement about B&W films mean you wouldn't bother watching Ed Wood on your setup?