Try forever. The man is obsessed with what he's described as "tech noir", a term he also saw fit to use as the name of the club in The Terminator.
Those who hate Bay go into his films with their opinion on the given film already colored and set in stone...they will mock and laugh at it which is the reason why you couldn't tell the difference between the robots, you didn't care enough to notice and with all due respect that isn't Bay's problem, it's the viewers.
I don't see why it's so complicated, the original cartoons were light, fun and cheesy, why all of a sudden is this material expected to be the next Ben Hur? Simply because a certain property is being expressed on celluloid it's expected to be better than it's source? Why exactly is that?
Bay was the right man to direct this material and he did it more than well enough. If someone doesn't like Transformers or Bay why do they continue to see his films or see a film based on a phenomenon that they completely missed the boat on?
This topic is played out lol.
If one hates Bay, save yourselves a few bucks and don't see his films, it''ll save you the aggravation and spare everyone else the grief of going round and round in a pointless Bay *vs* (insert precieved better director here) debate.
James Cameron has never been a filmmaker so dark that it has alienated mainstream movie goers though. His films may be a tad on the darker side, in the same way some might classify the Lord of the Rings as a dark movie series.
It's still a mainstream movie franchise. The only Cameron film I'd say that goes beyond the pale of popcorn entertainment is maybe the Abyss. To call his films "brooding" is a serious stretch. The Dark Knight is probably darker than anything Cameron has done.
I don't actually have that big of a problem with Michael Bay. I just thought Transformers, even for a Michael Bay film, was pretty weak. It makes Armageddon look like a Woody Allen character piece by comparison. Bay isn't great at constructing/directing action sequences with any tension either, it's all just CGI fluff which in a few years will be dated. I didn't bring up the Cameron-Bay comparisons either, I was just responding to something someone else chose to bring up.
True Lies has plenty of humor, whimsy, and teeth. I'm not saying Cameron would be the right guy for TF, but for damn certain would he make a better and smarter film, losing no visual impact or degradation in the action scenes.
Edit: I'd like to clarify the above as it is not fair to Bay's visual prowess. Cameron's superiority comes from his attention to detail on the material and the story. When it comes to scripts...Bay is lazy. As long as he has an action scene, a heavy-handed emotional beat, and some stereotyped humor - he is satisfied. The fundamentals aren't addressed. It is like putting a great paintjob on a boring car. That is why Bay draws such criticism. He has so much potential. He doesn't have to write his own scripts, but at least demand a little more character fidelity and narrative cohesion. The guy just wants to shoot...I get that. But if your script is anemic, it is unfixable in filming or post. Bay is tremendously gifted at some elements of direction, but seemingly uninterested in others. The action scenes in TF2 look good and the narrative scene looked stupid. It is too bad.
Couldn't agree more. Studios throw a boatload of money at Bay for his movies but reap the benefits afterwards when they make millions more back. I don't think there's ever been a Bay movie that hasn't been a success. Maybe The Island was the least successful of the bunch but I really doubt they took a loss on it. TF2 won't be the exception.
I don't think a single person has postulated that TF2 will do anything but make a ton of money. That is a given. It also has little to do with discussion about Bay the filmmaker.
The point is that regardless what a bunch of movie snobs, such as this forum (me included) think, these "hack" directors are still in charge of making huge films. Bay and McG come to mind. The business is not driven by quality, it's driven by dollars. So as the consumer you have all the power, just don't EVER pay to see the movie. But we all know that at some point almost every "Bay basher" on this forum will pay money at some point to see Transformers 2. If you see the movie you are part of the problem.
And I enjoyed the first transformers. If I had to wait around for only perfect films to come out then I would need to find a new hobby.
I'd classify people like Brett Ratner and Steven Sommers more as "hack" directors than Bay and possibly even McG(if Terminator Salvation turns out to be good). Ratner and Sommers are so many notches below Bay it's not even funny.
I would add Rob Cohen to that list as well. He's nowhere near the level of Bay.
As far as Transformers movies go, the only things I'm looking for is that it's fun and it's at least as good as the animated series that it's based on. The first movie exceeded all of my expectations. I'm sure the sequel will tool.
I'd say Sommer's first Mummy flick is actually a pretty well done summer popcorn flick.
I would rank that above Transformers easily. To be honest I had more fun with The Mummy than I did with The Phantom Menace (I think Entertainment Weekly also stated this back in '99).
I think The Mummy actually has pretty good characters for a film of that type.
Rachel Weisz is great, and even Brendan Fraser is tolerable. Their chemistry together just works. The Benny character is great too. It was fun and well-paced, for what it is I actually think it's superior to the last Indiana Jones.
And definitely above Transformers (lets face it -- the strongest character in this film is Megan Fox's wardrobe ... sorry Optimus Prime) or TPM.
And I hated to admit that at the time, I didn't even want to admit it to myself because I was so hugely anticipating Star Wars Episode I ... but man that was a flaaaaaaaat film outside of the 5 minutes or so that Darth Maul was on screen.
For me Transformers is roughly equivalent to The Mummy Returns ... which was a considerable step down from the first Mummy. I just cannot give summer films a pass for not having any good characters. I will tolerate outrageous plots and even stupid plots ... but the characters at least have to be there and have to work. That's why the original Star Wars trilogy and the Indiana Jones films and Terminator work so well and stuff like Back to the Future totally nails it.
I don't give summer films a pass on that. That's a huge part of making a good popcorn film. There's an art to making even these so-called "stupid summer blockbusters". I'm hoping that J.J. Abrams nails it with Star Trek, it sounds like he has.
I think we're getting WAY off topic here. We're bouncing around from Cameron to "hack" directors to Star Wars to Star Trek in a TRANSFORMERS thread. All of this stuff has been hashed, rehashed and microwaved a thousand times before and it isn't really necessary here.
BOTTOM LINE: I'm looking forward to Transformers 2 and don't really care if anyone else is or not.