Discuss.

I can't quite understand where all the hatred towards Michael Bay comes from, as I've seen a couple of his films and found them watchable. I also remember when, say, Armageddon came out and everyone was obsessed with it. Now I look all over the internet and I see him being called a hack with no talent. All over his IMDb board, and everywhere!

Though, I have heard that off the set he is a jerk, which I'm not sure is true but that's another matter.

His movies are at the core pretty god damn dumb, all about the flash - but it gets asses in seats. They're decent popcorn movies. He's...good at what he does. It's not enthralling, quality cinema in terms of brilliant story telling, but if you can shy your brain away from that, most of his work isn't that atrocious.

It's at least fun to count the explosions :D

BTW me not totally ripping on him has nothing to do with Transformers - I'm very unhappy with that film, but I can watch a few of his others, I guess mainly the Bad Boys movies.

Discuss.

I can't quite understand where all the hatred towards Michael Bay comes from, as I've seen a couple of his films and found them watchable. I also remember when, say, Armageddon came out and everyone was obsessed with it. Now I look all over the internet and I see him being called a hack with no talent. All over his IMDb board, and everywhere!

Though, I have heard that off the set he is a jerk, which I'm not sure is true but that's another matter.

His personality is pretty irrelavant to how good his films are but you should check out his official forum. I've read some of his posts, he was bragging about how rich he is.

Eh, Bay's a bit of a cretin and I doubt that he's ever made a genuinely good movie, but he's not the bottom of the barrel. I dislike Spielberg a lot more than him, if that says anything.

C'mon, dude! Michael Bay don't make me cry!

That's funny, he makes me cry.

His personality is pretty irrelavant to how good his films are but you should check out his official forum. I've read some of his posts, he was bragging about how rich he is.

Pay attention to the thread title, it was "Is Michael Bay unfairly hated" and not "are his films unfairly hated". As far as I know, his personality is also a factor if we're asking why people hate him.

he is the incarnation of hollywood.

Pay attention to the thread title, it was "Is Michael Bay unfairly hated" and not "are his films unfairly hated". As far as I know, his personality is also a factor if we're asking why people hate him.

Well in that case then yes he is fairly hated, apparently he is a cunt.

I dunno, I've never met the guy, though I've heard he can be a bit domineering on the set. Is he a cunt in real life? I have no idea.
As for his films, I've always found them to be good movies when I'm in the mood for brainless action. While he did trip up on Transformers story-wise, the action sequences were really cool. I know, sabot rounds (or any human weapons, really) should have no effect on the Decepticons, and some of the names were screwed up and the designs were so much to look at they could be an eyesore more than anything, but it was visually exciting, so I enjoyed it very much in that regard.

I always find it weird when a director is a prick on set, from the sets i've been on the directors that get the best job done are the ones that are friendly.

I always find it weird when a director is a prick on set, from the sets i've been on the directors that get the best job done are the ones that are friendly.

Do you work in Hollywood or something? I don't know a single person in my life who's visited that many sets to know that.

What, don't YOU visit sets?

Eh, Bay's a bit of a cretin and I doubt that he's ever made a genuinely good movie, but he's not the bottom of the barrel. I dislike Spielberg a lot more than him, if that says anything.

My sentiments exactly. E.T.? Critically acclaimed my ass!

Do you work in Hollywood or something? I don't know a single person in my life who's visited that many sets to know that.

No, I live in the UK but I do some extra work from time to time. I guess you could call me a very struggling actor.

I think when Bay firdt started in Hollywood he had a brillint style thats been copied and ruined his movies like the rock non stop action the slow motion the Hans Zimmer scores ect..

Discuss.

I can't quite understand where all the hatred towards Michael Bay comes from, as I've seen a couple of his films and found them watchable. I also remember when, say, Armageddon came out and everyone was obsessed with it. Now I look all over the internet and I see him being called a hack with no talent. All over his IMDb board, and everywhere!

Though, I have heard that off the set he is a jerk, which I'm not sure is true but that's another matter.

He was the only useful commentator on On the Lot. Besides that most of his movies suck, but are harmless.

Too much money can ruin a director like Bay but Transformers was good shame about Pearl Harbour. Chris Nolan had loads of money withThe Dark Knight buy what a movie.

learn. to. use. punctuation.

I think it is because people associate Michael Bay with his notable movies that are mainly big explosions and very cheesy dialogues in between. Armageddon ring any bells? lol Transformers had that same style as well.

I have no clue whatsoever how he's like irl, I haven't paid any attention to that ever, but his only movie that I ~kinda~ liked was Bad Boys. :o

Bad boys was wicked bad boys 2 was again too much money not enough formula

too much money not enough formula. . .
too much money not enough formula. . .

What?

He's no McG! Michael Bay probably would've made a better Terminator movie, even though he is obsessed with sex, big explosions, and slow motion shots.

First of all, I don't even remember posting this thread.

Secondly, you say "he's no McG" implies McG is better, but then you say the opposite...?

First of all, I don't even remember posting this thread.

Secondly, you say "he's no McG" implies McG is better, but then you say the opposite...?

I think by reading it the way you did, YOU implied that McG was better. It was a reply to the title of the thread "Is Michael Bay unfairly hated." He may be unfairly hated, for whatever reason, but "He's No McG."

Eh, Bay's a bit of a cretin and I doubt that he's ever made a genuinely good movie, but he's not the bottom of the barrel. I dislike Spielberg a lot more than him, if that says anything.

^ This.

Ummm...FUCK NO!!!

Anyone that's ever read any of his interviews already knows that the man is an ego-centric fuck-face, but that's not all. He also thinks that the box-office take of his films legitimize his work. So let's take a look at that work...

Bad Boys - http://www.avclub.com/articles/bad-boys,30383/ That sums it up...so does the 42% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The Rock - His only movie with a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but it barely scrapes in with 65%. That's almost the bare minimum...

Armageddon - 40% and a brick-stupid premise that Ben Affleck reportedly pointed out during filming ("Why don't you just teach the astronauts to operate a drill...?").

Pearl Harbor - An almost universally hated film that comes in with 25%.

Bad Boys II - Fuck-awful, and one of the first examples of "Bay Unleashed" that should've been seen as a warning sign. This one rates in at 23%, and rips off Jackie Chan's Police Story.

The Island - A rip-off of an already shitty movie (Parts: The Clonus Horror - It was featured on an episode of MST3K) that came in at 40%. A slight improvement, but pretty forgettable.

Transformers - This one got a pass from a lot of people for some reason in spite of the fact that Bay had no goodwill to fall back on considering his track record. Still, it got a rotten rating with 57%.

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen - Bay is back in familiar territory with the 20% that this shit-stain managed, and it's another example of what happens when this director is unchecked.

A through-line in Michael Bay's work is his use of stereotypes in the place of character development, militaristic jingoism, sexism, frat-boy humor, canned jokes, and an overall carelessness and lack of respect for the audience. The pot brownie "joke," testicles on a robot, animal cracker sex, subplots in the place of actual plots, and the self-congratulatory moments in his last two films point to a man that thinks he's smarter than the crowd. Bay is pretty damned proud of himself, and he thinks he's better than you. Aside from that, his pride goes to insulting and ridiculous lengths(example: taking credit for the careers of Will Smith, Nic Cage, Ben Affleck, etc.). Combine these factors and I ask a completely different question: Is there ANYTHING about this man that you should like?

Fuck Rotten tomatoes! most of the votes are multiple accounts anyways! The only feaking opinion that should matter is your own, not what other people say!

As far as Bay is concerned, HELLO? What do you expect? They're Guy flicks! It's like ripping on a director for making over-the-top chick flicks! C'mon! You guys know what to expect from his films going in, yet you come out dissapointed because it was the same movie! If you don't like his movies, then don't waste your time and money by seeing them! You're better off taking a shit and hoping it doesn't stink! I'll admit, I like his movies. I'm not expecting to see an Oscar winning epic film, but I know it'll amuse me for the whole duration of it.
Bottomline, People are simply pissed off cause they wanted to see an exact transformers cartoon transfered to film! That's impossible, and if it was, it would be a direct-to-home movie, cause theres no way it'll make money save for the handful of fanboys who would still complain over it!

Ummm...FUCK NO!!!

Anyone that's ever read any of his interviews already knows that the man is an ego-centric fuck-face, but that's not all. He also thinks that the box-office take of his films legitimize his work. So let's take a look at that work...

how many of those movies have you seen?

Combine these factors and I ask a completely different question: Is there ANYTHING about this man that you should like?

I like his eyes.

*Rimshot* lol

Personally I don't give a shit about the behavior or mentality of the directors, critics nor anyone when it comes to personal stuff... I only care about the work done, which are the movies in this case. I like transformers despite whatever type of person he is, really. :|

Work done can redeem anyone's flaws in their personalities... unless you're chris brown and beated the shit out of your girlfriend and then made a video everyone knows it's bullshit. People get too soft caring about people's personalities and how they act... seriously, who cares? it's michael bay, you'll never meet him in your life, that's why it's only smart to care about the part of him you'll ever interact with, which are his movies. :)

which suck anyway :smrt:

Fuck Rotten tomatoes! most of the votes are multiple accounts anyways! The only feaking opinion that should matter is your own, not what other people say!

As far as Bay is concerned, HELLO? What do you expect? They're Guy flicks! It's like ripping on a director for making over-the-top chick flicks! C'mon! You guys know what to expect from his films going in, yet you come out dissapointed because it was the same movie! If you don't like his movies, then don't waste your time and money by seeing them! You're better off taking a shit and hoping it doesn't stink! I'll admit, I like his movies. I'm not expecting to see an Oscar winning epic film, but I know it'll amuse me for the whole duration of it.
Bottomline, People are simply pissed off cause they wanted to see an exact transformers cartoon transfered to film! That's impossible, and if it was, it would be a direct-to-home movie, cause theres no way it'll make money save for the handful of fanboys who would still complain over it!

To sum things up, this is a really weak argument (and a generic one, I hate to say...). No one expects an action movie to be an "Oscar-winning epic film," but the truth is by lowering the standards for quality cinema you actually guarantee that it will never happen. More importantly, that's the kind of defense that Michael Bay and other shitty film-makers expect people to make for their piss-poor work. They don't have to work harder or smarter as long as there is a built-in protection against criticism like this one. And this kind of defense is really just meant to cover for sub-par work, but it only amounts to an excuse for mediocrity. Iron Man never had a chance at winning anything but technical awards, but it was still a solid film with well-developed characters, a coherent and cohesive plot, good acting, and good action. You don't see anyone ragging on John Favreau though, do you? Nor do you see anyone tearing down John McTiernan (Die Hard, Predator, etc.), Richard Donner (Superman, Lethal Weapon, etc.), or James Cameron.

You also have no idea what people were looking for in a Transformers film because the problem with Bay's interpretation is not that it doesn't resemble the cartoon, but rather that the films are the lowest of lowest common denominator bullshit. You can't defend that fat guy running down the street saying "This is cooler than Armageddon!!!" or the cheap midget joke with Deep Roy. And his films are filled with moments like these and worse. The real complaints with Michael Bay's work has nothing to do with inaccuracy in adaptation, but everything to do with his complete "all flash, no substance" approach to films that ultimately undermine any technical skill he has. This isn't just an issue that people have with Transformers either, but that much is pretty obvious. Even Megan Fox called it. If it weren't for his ego, I'd actually feel bad for the guy. However, it's that very same ego that keeps him from growing and improving. And those that defend him a don't do him any favors. This is a guy that is clearly looking for evidence that he is in fact "hot shit," so when people make excuses for his movies as opposed to calling a spade a spade he views it as vindication. Box-office success is synonymous with popularity to him (which is about as true as equating critical acclaim with quality), so as long as his movies make money he thinks he's doing great work. But a look at IMDB's Top 250 list can give us all an indication of what films are truly popular (meaning memorable or the ones that have "legs"). None of his films are on that list, and there's a reason for that. Bay treats narrative like a chore in his films, and that's one of the key elements of a film that helps it last. Narrative in a film allows actors the opportunity to give memorable performances. In Bay's movies, just about anyone could fill the roles and the experience would be no different. Simply put, there's nothing below the surface and it's conversations about things beyond the visuals that grant a film immortality.

As for the question, I took it at face value. Since nothing was made to point to only his work, I considered this to be a look at the man as a whole. Since I don't know the man personally, I can't say that he is worst of humanity. I can say that he gives people plenty of reasons to dislike him that goes beyond society's twisted hatred for/fascination with celebrities. Even if his movies were good, there'd still be his self-importance which even bleeds into his work. And to say that someone's work can overshadow their personality flaws is ridiculous. If he were a racist, a child molester, or a murderer, do you realize how stupid such a statement would be? I look at a case like R. Kelly. Sure people like his music, but there's more than circumstantial evidence out there that this man was guilty of statutory rape. You can be a fan of his work, but to say that it overlaps his transgressions as a person is the height of absurdity.

i like you. post more please (and in GD).

also, don't even get started on that skank megan fox

I like both of the Transformer movies, mainly because I don't remember anything before it. I think they were both good action movies, and the amount of tickets sold, indicates that a lot of people liked them too. No, I was never a Transformers fan, so I have nothing to compare them too.

As for his other films? Well, I liked "The Island" (that was him?), but the rest I didn't like, or don't remember. >>

I like both of the Transformer movies, mainly because I don't remember anything before it. I think they were both good action movies, and the amount of tickets sold, indicates that a lot of people liked them too. No, I was never a Transformers fan, so I have nothing to compare them too.

As for his other films? Well, I liked "The Island" (that was him?), but the rest I didn't like, or don't remember. >>

That caveat is the problem with the genre as a whole. A good action movie is no different from a good movie, and until we all realize this the genre will never be respected and most action movies will still suck. And don't try to argue that any of Bay's films are good because that is a venturing into very debatable territory. Especially in the case of the Transformers films...

Fine. I think they're good movies. Period. You don't like them? Fine. I don't see the point in taking this any further, as we'll end up at the exact same place as we started.

As for Bay himself. So, he's a cunt. That still doesn't have any bearing on how I feel about the Transformer movies. Unless it is a biopic directed by himself, about himself, I think it is possibly to separate an artist --or in this case, a director-- from his work.

To sum things up, this is a really weak argument (and a generic one, I hate to say...). No one expects an action movie to be an "Oscar-winning epic film," but the truth is by lowering the standards for quality cinema you actually guarantee that it will never happen. More importantly, that's the kind of defense that Michael Bay and other shitty film-makers expect people to make for their piss-poor work. They don't have to work harder or smarter as long as there is a built-in protection against criticism like this one. And this kind of defense is really just meant to cover for sub-par work, but it only amounts to an excuse for mediocrity. Iron Man never had a chance at winning anything but technical awards, but it was still a solid film with well-developed characters, a coherent and cohesive plot, good acting, and good action. You don't see anyone ragging on John Favreau though, do you? Nor do you see anyone tearing down John McTiernan (Die Hard, Predator, etc.), Richard Donner (Superman, Lethal Weapon, etc.), or James Cameron.
His films alone won't bring the quality of films down, as a matter of fact, his and other blockbuster films give companies the confidence to take chances on other directors to make more blockbuster and other films they normally wouldn't take the chance on! besides, for every crappy movie out there, there's like 4 or 5 good ones that come out!


You also have no idea what people were looking for in a Transformers film because the problem with Bay's interpretation is not that it doesn't resemble the cartoon, but rather that the films are the lowest of lowest common denominator bullshit. You can't defend that fat guy running down the street saying "This is cooler than Armageddon!!!" or the cheap midget joke with Deep Roy. And his films are filled with moments like these and worse. The real complaints with Michael Bay's work has nothing to do with inaccuracy in adaptation, but everything to do with his complete "all flash, no substance" approach to films that ultimately undermine any technical skill he has. This isn't just an issue that people have with Transformers either, but that much is pretty obvious. Even Megan Fox called it. If it weren't for his ego, I'd actually feel bad for the guy. However, it's that very same ego that keeps him from growing and improving. And those that defend him a don't do him any favors. This is a guy that is clearly looking for evidence that he is in fact "hot shit," so when people make excuses for his movies as opposed to calling a spade a spade he views it as vindication. Box-office success is synonymous with popularity to him (which is about as true as equating critical acclaim with quality), so as long as his movies make money he thinks he's doing great work. But a look at IMDB's Top 250 list can give us all an indication of what films are truly popular (meaning memorable or the ones that have "legs"). None of his films are on that list, and there's a reason for that. Bay treats narrative like a chore in his films, and that's one of the key elements of a film that helps it last. Narrative in a film allows actors the opportunity to give memorable performances. In Bay's movies, just about anyone could fill the roles and the experience would be no different. Simply put, there's nothing below the surface and it's conversations about things beyond the visuals that grant a film immortality. It's a children's cartoon! You can't make a worthy film out of a cartoon! G.I. Joe, Speed Racer, and Transformers did what they were intended on doing. Bringing people into the seats. They geared the movies toward 2 major audiences. Men who were fans of the shows and toys when they were small, and their kids! It wasn't a fan flick! If it was, we'd see more longer scenes with the transformers rather than the humans. Spiderman, Iron Man, The Dark knight, etc. were all fan flicks cause the characters were developed from bottom up to where the sequels actually worked.


As for the question, I took it at face value. Since nothing was made to point to only his work, I considered this to be a look at the man as a whole. Since I don't know the man personally, I can't say that he is worst of humanity. I can say that he gives people plenty of reasons to dislike him that goes beyond society's twisted hatred for/fascination with celebrities. Even if his movies were good, there'd still be his self-importance which even bleeds into his work. And to say that someone's work can overshadow their personality flaws is ridiculous. If he were a racist, a child molester, or a murderer, do you realize how stupid such a statement would be? I look at a case like R. Kelly. Sure people like his music, but there's more than circumstantial evidence out there that this man was guilty of statutory rape. You can be a fan of his work, but to say that it overlaps his transgressions as a person is the height of absurdity.
But why should anyone care in the first place! Nobody would know anything about these people if it wasn't for the paparazzi to expose them. For example, Michelangelo. It said that he was arrogant, brooding, and unsocialble, but does that mean his works of art are any less great because he wasn't a good guy to hang around with?
or how about Ty Cobb? He was an asshole, even his teammates hated him, but did that make him any less of a great ballplayer?

That caveat is the problem with the genre as a whole. A good action movie is no different from a good movie, and until we all realize this the genre will never be respected and most action movies will still suck. And don't try to argue that any of Bay's films are good because that is a venturing into very debatable territory. Especially in the case of the Transformers films...
Then what's the point of this topic? you say his films suck, yet you don't want any of us who happen to like some of his films to say otherwise cause it'll lead into a debate!? you must be a newb then cause that's all we do here is debate!

Bottomline, People are simply pissed off cause they wanted to see an exact transformers cartoon transfered to film!

Not to argue with you but that's a big generalization. That's some people, not all. I'm a huge Transformer fan but my problem with the live action films has nothing to do with what they changed, it's just that they're really sloppily made. The effects look pretty realistic, but so what, the stories and the way they're put together (the shots Bay used, the pacing, blah blah) are shit. He lets characters completely disappear. He shows characters just waking up in the morning and immediately getting right into a predicament that shows us...the sun is setting! He shows "action" in a way that barely gives a clear view of what happened, instead only giving the...sense of it. He puts in lowbrow comic relief for the hell of it, in manners that hardly ever advance the plot in any way. There's plenty to dislike other than "OH NO OPTIMUS HAS FLAMES"

...and what of the people that watched those movies and hated em even though it was the first time they'd paid any attention to the TF franchise? The people that even knew who the hell Megatron or Bumblebee were make up only a small part of the overall audience.

Fine. I think they're good movies. Period. You don't like them? Fine. I don't see the point in taking this any further, as we'll end up at the exact same place as we started.

As for Bay himself. So, he's a cunt. That still doesn't have any bearing on how I feel about the Transformer movies. Unless it is a biopic directed by himself, about himself, I think it is possibly to separate an artist --or in this case, a director-- from his work.

Opinions on a movie(s) and the facts about said movie(s) are not always one and the same. You thinking they're good movies doesn't mean they are, simply put. In fact, you are flat-out wrong if you're saying that the Transformers movies are good. A good movie is well-written, well-performed, well-produced, and well-directed. Since there's no way anyone could claim that those films are well-written or well-performed without lying, they fail the test.


His films alone won't bring the quality of films down, as a matter of fact, his and other blockbuster films give companies the confidence to take chances on other directors to make more blockbuster and other films they normally wouldn't take the chance on! besides, for every crappy movie out there, there's like 4 or 5 good ones that come out!

No, you misunderstand me. His films do nothing to elevate the genre of action films or blockbusters while being high-profile examples of everything wrong with mainstream film and their audiences. Michael Bay and his ilk are the reason why The Academy Awards are so stilted and predictable. To simplify, he does more harm than good by reinforcing the worst elements of the status quo in Hollywood while audiences get dumber and dumber in their defense of his shoddy work. Things can't improve following this routine...


It's a children's cartoon! You can't make a worthy film out of a cartoon! G.I. Joe, Speed Racer, and Transformers did what they were intended on doing. Bringing people into the seats. They geared the movies toward 2 major audiences. Men who were fans of the shows and toys when they were small, and their kids! It wasn't a fan flick! If it was, we'd see more longer scenes with the transformers rather than the humans. Spiderman, Iron Man, The Dark knight, etc. were all fan flicks cause the characters were developed from bottom up to where the sequels actually worked.

This entire statement is bullshit. In claiming that G.I. Joe, Transformers, and Speed Racer are "children's cartoons" you conveniently ignore the fact that Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Batman are all characters that reached wide audiences despite having been geared towards children initially. They didn't just luck into success. They were well-written, well-produced, well-performed, and well-directed. The only difference is not in the source material but in the quality of work that went into the adaptation. G.I Joe and Transformers were half-assed efforts with no other goal in mind than profit, and Speed Racer COMPLETELY misses the point (like Episode I-levels...I may explain later). To say that a good movie couldn't be produced from the material is not only stating that the films that have been are shit, but it's a complete fucking cop-out. Just because the movies we got weren't good doesn't mean that good movies can't be made. The examples you gave also prove you wrong.


But why should anyone care in the first place! Nobody would know anything about these people if it wasn't for the paparazzi to expose them. For example, Michelangelo. It said that he was arrogant, brooding, and unsocialble, but does that mean his works of art are any less great because he wasn't a good guy to hang around with?
or how about Ty Cobb? He was an asshole, even his teammates hated him, but did that make him any less of a great ballplayer?

I don't know if you realized this, but you made my point. If we're talking about the perception of the individual, then a douche is a douche. Trying to ignore that doesn't change the fact that the person is unlikeable. And the fact that you just associated Michael Bay with Michelangelo is disgusting...


Then what's the point of this topic? you say his films suck, yet you don't want any of us who happen to like some of his films to say otherwise cause it'll lead into a debate!? you must be a newb then cause that's all we do here is debate!

Again, you misunderstand me. I just wouldn't want you or anyone else wasting your time debating from a losing position. Michael Bay is a piss-poor director and a generally lousy human being. There's more evidence to support this than one would like to admit, and any claims to the contrary would be based on nothing. You can't win this fight...

Fail the test? You are arrogant and sorely misguided. If I think a movie is good, then it certainly is to me. It may not be a good movie to you, or others, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a good movie to me, personally. A movie like "The Shawshank Redemption" is considered to be a fantastic movie, yet, I was never too keen on it. That doesn't take anything away from the movie itself, though. You cannot judge a movie on the scale you are, as people are allowed to form their own opinions.

It's all a matter of personal taste, so I think it would be unfair and inappropriate to start hurling out feces like a Howler Monkey the way you do, simply because you always want to be right in everything you say.

It kills you that someone actually likes his movies, doesn't it? He must have stepped on your foot at some point, because it is clear that you cannot be objective when it comes to the subject of Michael Bay, as you clearly harvest a deep-rooted hatred towards him.

And, you can't win this fight? How old are you?

Fail the test? You are arrogant and sorely misguided. If I think a movie is good, then it certainly is to me. It may not be a good movie to you, or others, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a good movie to me, personally. A movie like "The Shawshank Redemption" is considered to be a fantastic movie, yet, I was never too keen on it. That doesn't take anything away from the movie itself, though. You cannot judge a movie on the scale you are, as people are allowed to form their own opinions.

It's all a matter of personal taste, so I think it would be unfair and inappropriate to start hurling out feces like a Howler Monkey the way you do, simply because you always want to be right in everything you say.

It kills you that someone actually likes his movies, doesn't it? He must have stepped on your foot at some point, because it is clear that you cannot be objective when it comes to the subject of Michael Bay, as you clearly harvest a deep-rooted hatred towards him.

And, you can't win this fight? How old are you?

Old enough to know that attempts to defend Bay are ultimately futile because he's already said or done something to dick-slap your position. I'm also old enough to know that your argument is nothing but an attempt at leveling the playing field with an H-bomb as Devin Faraci once said. You want to believe that an opinion is absolved from by nature of being an opinion, but that's bullshit and we both know it. To levy that kind of argument wastes our time by attempting to kill any critical thought. We're not discussing the film(s) as much as I'm having to tell you that your opinion doesn't make you right.You're no in a world unto yourself, so the rest of us don't really give two shits if you think you're right. We figured as much when you voiced your opinion. However, what you don't supply are facts to support your opinion. You think the Transformers movies are good, then tell us why so that I can give you concrete proof why they aren't...or better yet, I'll just tell you now!

The films that Michael Bay makes are narratives, so that's the criteria upon which they have been criticized. In the case of both Transformers films, there are plot-holes, factual errors, and continuity so poor that sometimes the following shot contradicts the last. That is not a good film, and any argument to the contrary is a fucking lie.

I've seen this "it's my opinion" argument plenty of times before, but the stance misses the point entirely. This isn't a matter of opinions, and your example proves another problem you may have: you aren't even approaching objectivity, and in failing at that you make the laziest, lowest common denominator argument possible. I don't like Juno, but I'd never say that it's a bad movie. On the other hand, I loved Punisher: Warzone and I'll NEVER refer to it as a good movie because it isn't. Personal enjoyment is relative, but actual quality is not.

Old enough to know that attempts to defend Bay are ultimately futile because he's already said or done something to dick-slap your position. I'm also old enough to know that your argument is nothing but an attempt at leveling the playing field with an H-bomb as Devin Faraci once said.

Do you take pride in using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing?


You want to believe that an opinion is absolved from by nature of being an opinion, but that's bullshit and we both know it. To levy that kind of argument wastes our time by attempting to kill any critical thought. We're not discussing the film(s) as much as I'm having to tell you that your opinion doesn't make you right.

I want you to read that back to yourself, and perhaps then you'll realise your own point: that your opinion doesn't make you right, either.


You're no in a world unto yourself, so the rest of us don't really give two shits if you think you're right. We figured as much when you voiced your opinion. However, what you don't supply are facts to support your opinion. You think the Transformers movies are good, then tell us why so that I can give you concrete proof why they aren't...or better yet, I'll just tell you now!

I need to supply facts to support my opinion on why I think a specific movie is good, or not? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What you fail to realise is that if a movie moves you a certain way, or makes you feel a certain feeling, that it is emotional, and no amount of "facts" can ever undermine that. I am sure that you have certain movies (from your childhood, perhaps), that makes you feel that way, too.


The films that Michael Bay makes are narratives, so that's the criteria upon which they have been criticized. In the case of both Transformers films, there are plot-holes, factual errors, and continuity so poor that sometimes the following shot contradicts the last. That is not a good film, and any argument to the contrary is a fucking lie.

Do you ever watch a movie without over analyzing everything? Have you ever watched a movie just because you wanted to relax and enoy it, rather than picking it apart? If not, what exactly is the point in watching one, if not for the sake of enjoyment?


I've seen this "it's my opinion" argument plenty of times before, but the stance misses the point entirely. This isn't a matter of opinions, and your example proves another problem you may have: you aren't even approaching objectivity, and in failing at that you make the laziest, lowest common denominator argument possible. I don't like Juno, but I'd never say that it's a bad movie. On the other hand, I loved Punisher: Warzone and I'll NEVER refer to it as a good movie because it isn't. Personal enjoyment is relative, but actual quality is not.

Personal enjoyment is relative? Personal enjoyment is emotional. "Quality", however, is relative, and defined by opinions, not facts.

Fuck Rotten tomatoes! most of the votes are multiple accounts anyways! The only feaking opinion that should matter is your own, not what other people say!

That's not how Rotten Tomatoes works, mang. Are you mixing it up with imdb? Roten Tomatoes takes reviews from film critics to get their score.

Where did this concept that action movies are supposed to be stupid and poorly plotted come from, anyways? Sounds like we could use an action movies recommendation thread.

Do you take pride in using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing?

I could've just said "Zulu, you're full of shit and your opinion isn't fit to wipe a rat's ass with" but I respect you enough to clearly state what's wrong with what's being said as opposed to making childish attempts at belittlement when someone disagrees with me. The truth is, your position starting from the wrong position. If you don't get that, then what's the point in continuing any further?


I want you to read that back to yourself, and perhaps then you'll realise your own point: that your opinion doesn't make you right, either.

That's why I supply evidence to support it. You should try it some time...


I need to supply facts to support my opinion on why I think a specific movie is good, or not? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What you fail to realise is that if a movie moves you a certain way, or makes you feel a certain feeling, that it is emotional, and no amount of "facts" can ever undermine that. I am sure that you have certain movies (from your childhood, perhaps), that makes you feel that way, too.

Feigned stupidity isn't charming or clever. It's just sad, and sometimes it's just stupid. You say something is good, then in a case like this you have to say why. It's fairly clear. All I did was beat you to the punch on pointing out the flaws in the films. You still have the opportunity to provide proof of its quality, but I also noticed that you haven't done that. Instead, you've tried attacking me in the place of supporting your claim. Thanks for proving me right...


Do you ever watch a movie without over analyzing everything? Have you ever watched a movie just because you wanted to relax and enoy it, rather than picking it apart? If not, what exactly is the point in watching one, if not for the sake of enjoyment?

This is another of the many pathetic fallback arguments that Bay defenders mount: "You're over-analyzing it." I retort by asking you to justify it. How much is a viewer supposed to ignore? Is it really possible to enjoy a film while pretending not to see its failings? I'm not "over-analyzing" the film(s) as much as you are fooling yourself into seeing the movie you want instead of the one that exists. Try again.


Personal enjoyment is relative? Personal enjoyment is emotional. "Quality", however, is relative, and defined by opinions, not facts.

Wrong again. Quality is not relative as it can and is defined and determined by fact. If Transformers looked like Transmorphers, would you say that the effects were good? Fuck no you wouldn't! Would you say that You Got Served is well-written? That's another "Fuck no" and you know it...Quality can be measured. Let's not shit ourselves.

That's not how Rotten Tomatoes works, mang. Are you mixing it up with imdb? Roten Tomatoes takes reviews from film critics to get their score.

Where did this concept that action movies are supposed to be stupid and poorly plotted come from, anyways? Sounds like we could use an action movies recommendation thread.

:smrt:I could hug you...

:smrt:I could hug you...

Feeling is mutual. <3 I hope you post more!

I could've just said "Zulu, you're full of shit and your opinion isn't fit to wipe a rat's ass with" but I respect you enough to clearly state what's wrong with what's being said as opposed to making childish attempts at belittlement when someone disagrees with me. The truth is, your position starting from the wrong position. If you don't get that, then what's the point in continuing any further?

I must say that I simply do not get you. You keep trying bully me into agreeing with you, by throwing one arrogant line after another at me? And I am the one who is trying to belittle you?


Feigned stupidity isn't charming or clever. It's just sad, and sometimes it's just stupid. You say something is good, then in a case like this you have to say why. It's fairly clear. All I did was beat you to the punch on pointing out the flaws in the films. You still have the opportunity to provide proof of its quality, but I also noticed that you haven't done that. Instead, you've tried attacking me in the place of supporting your claim. Thanks for proving me right...

Again, I could say that I think it is a good movie, but anything I would have to say, would be an opinion, and not fact. Provide proof of its quality? I must say that I do not get your way of your way of thinking. If I say that I like the movie because I think it is funny, for an example, that would be a personal opinion, and nothing more. Or that I like the movie because I think it is exciting, that too would be a personal opinion of mine, so I do not get what you mean by "proof", as I am speaking on my own behalf, and how I feel about the movie. Those are two of the reasons why I think it is a good movie. Now what? Are you going to disproof both of those reasons? I am entitled to think that it is a good movie, even if you dig up all of the facts in the world, and throw them at me.


This is another of the many pathetic fallback arguments that Bay defenders mount: "You're over-analyzing it." I retort by asking you to justify it. How much is a viewer supposed to ignore? Is it really possible to enjoy a film while pretending not to see its failings? I'm not "over-analyzing" the film(s) as much as you are fooling yourself into seeing the movie you want instead of the one that exists. Try again.

Supposed to ignore? You went to see the second movie, did you not? If so, what exactly were you expecting? Michael Bay was still on the project, was he not? So I don't understand if you hated the first movie so much, why you would "torture" yourself by go seeing its sequel.

How many forums have you debated this subject on? What exactly is your crusade? Changing the hearts of everyone who happens to like Michael and/or his movies? To what purpuse for other than your own satisfaction? Let's say that you do manage to convert everybody, then what? Why harvest that much hatred towards someone you have no relations with? Because he happens to be in a position to make the things he want, his way? However crude he might be in the process of achieving those goals.


Wrong again. Quality is not relative as it can and is defined and determined by fact. If Transformers looked like Transmorphers, would you say that the effects were good? Fuck no you wouldn't! Would you say that You Got Served is well-written? That's another "Fuck no" and you know it...Quality can be measured. Let's not shit ourselves.
Quality can certainly be measured, but "quality" can also be nothing more than an opinion.

Now I cannot help but ask why you are so intend on proving to everyone that Michael Bay is the worst thing God has ever dropped on this earth? Tell me, I would really like to hear your reasons. :)

I must say that I simply do not get you. You keep trying bully me into agreeing with you, by throwing one arrogant line after another at me? And I am the one who is trying to belittle you?

You still don't see the difference, huh? Let me clear this up for you. I'm pointing to your argument and its flaws. You point at me. The reasons are pretty obvious, but I'll get to that in a sec'...


Again, I could say that I think it is a good movie, but anything I would have to say, would be an opinion, and not fact.

This is a weak cop-out. Support your claims. If you think it's a good movie, then give reasons. Stop pussyfooting around it, and just do it...


Provide proof of its quality? I must say that I do not get your way of your way of thinking. If I say that I like the movie because I think it is funny, for an example, that would be a personal opinion, and nothing more. Or that I like the movie because I think it is exciting, that too would be a personal opinion of mine, so I do not get what you mean by "proof", as I am speaking on my own behalf, and how I feel about the movie. Those are two of the reasons why I think it is a good movie. Now what? Are you going to disproof both of those reasons?

Easily...your "proof" isn't proof of anything because you can't seem to think past your own scope. Just because you like something doesn't mean that it's good. Your argument for the movie (excitement and humor) is based on narrowed perspective that can easily be debated and disproved. My argument against the movie (careless writing, plot-holes, bad continuity)has been based on the film itself and the myriad of flaws within that cannot be disproved. This kind of argument could be made for a film, but there has to be something to base it on. Try again...


I am entitled to think that it is a good movie, even if you dig up all of the facts in the world, and throw them at me.

And you'd be wrong too! Personal enjoyment =/= unquestionable fact. We've been over this...

Y'know what else we've been over? Your attempt to derail the issue, and I'm calling you on it. This little detour has been a waste of time based entirely on your attempt to save face because you seem to think that my calling Bay's work shitty has some bearings on you personally. Let me assure you that your enjoyment of his lousy films doesn't mean you have bad taste. But when you champion mediocrity, you make that harder to prove. Aside from that, I have no interest in meandering about when all this does is prove me right by discussing everything but the subject at hand. So here's what I propose to just you: Since your claim is that the Transformers movies are good, come up with some examples of actual merit. Until then...

:stopposting:

I give up. It would be futile to keep trying to explain myself to you why I don't need to "prove" why I think a movie is good, or any nonsense like that. You can list all of the technical reasons and dispute all of them, but that won't ever change the fact that I like it, thus making it a good movie to me. I can tell you why I think it's good, but not how or why I should prove to anyone that I think that it is a good movie. You can dispute all of my reasons, but that still won't change a single thing. I still think it is a good movie.

You can hit me with another arrogant rejoinder, and I could even post a pointless GIF animation like you did, but I am finished, and have said what I needed to say. O:

I give up. It would be futile to keep trying to explain myself to you why I don't need to "prove" why I think a movie is good, or any nonsense like that. You can list all of the technical reasons and dispute all of them, but that won't ever change the fact that I like it, thus making it a good movie to me. I can tell you why I think it's good, but not how or why I should prove to anyone that I think that it is a good movie. You can dispute all of my reasons, but that still won't change a single thing. I still think it is a good movie.

You can hit me with another arrogant rejoinder, and I could even post a pointless GIF animation like you did, but I am finished, and have said what I needed to say. O:

Whatever makes you feel better, pal.

For the last time, you liking something doesn't mean that it is good. Only an ego-centric jackass would think that it does. It's entirely possible to like something that is in fact...crap. It's not a novel concept. Get over yourself, Zulu.

Shinigami64, if I have ever said a harsh word to you, I take it back.

But a look at IMDB's Top 250 list can give us all an indication of what films are truly popular (meaning memorable or the ones that have "legs"). None of his films are on that list, and there's a reason for that.

Yes, and that reason is that it wasn't a Japanese poll, because if it was, surely masterpiece tear inducing film Armaggedon would be near the top (http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/ss/273/special/top.html), beating out classics like Cinema Paradisio, Schlindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption and Roman Holiday. Surely it will be remembered when we are all dead and gone.

I was looking at some Japanese blogs making fun of Armaggedon, and even they had to start from the position of "people, this is not a masterpiece!" and end with "I do not understand why this film is so beloved". It was much different than the kicking a child in the shins experience that making fun of Michael Bay in America is.

Also, just an aside, but Bay didn't write any of the films you brought up, and you're aiming the criticism of the scripts at him. Directors are given way too much credit for things they aren't primarily responsible for. It's like giving a producer hopping musician credit for the lyrics they never wrote and arrangements they never composed. I've had a much easier time finding things I'll enjoy by following writers instead of directors, though its great when someone does both.

Yes, and that reason is that it wasn't a Japanese poll, because if it was, surely masterpiece tear inducing film Armaggedon would be near the top (http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/ss/273/special/top.html), beating out classics like Cinema Paradisio, Schlindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption and Roman Holiday. Surely it will be remembered when we are all dead and gone.

You know the problem with that example is that IMDB is an international site while you went to a specific nation's acceptance of a movie. It's not quite an exception, but it is interesting...


I was looking at some Japanese blogs making fun of Armaggedon, and even they had to start from the position of "people, this is not a masterpiece!" and end with "I do not understand why this film is so beloved". It was much different than the kicking a child in the shins experience that making fun of Michael Bay in America is.

That's an ironic approach to the film, and I get that. That's how I "like" Street Fighter or The Room...


Also, just an aside, but Bay didn't write any of the films you brought up, and you're aiming the criticism of the scripts at him. Directors are given way too much credit for things they aren't primarily responsible for.

That's where you're wrong. Ultimately, directors and producers have the final word on the interpretation of a script. In fact, that the director's job in a nutshell. However, in the case of directors with clout in the industry like Bay, producers have little to no influence over the film that is made. Screenwriters almost barely factor into the equation as they tend to be considerably low on the totem. So when Michael Bay makes a lousy film, there really is no one to blame but him...and the audiences that keep giving him blank checks.


I've had a much easier time finding things I'll enjoy by following writers instead of directors, though its great when someone does both.

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen proves otherwise. The film was largely written by Bay after Kurtzman and Orci dropped out during the Writer's Strike (which came about due to the lack of respect and payment writers get in the Hollywood machine).

Yes, when I said it's great when someone both writes and directs films I was talking about how every film written and directed by the same person was great and not referring to how I have a better idea of the direction the films will take thanks to one person's creative vision having more control over the final outcome.

And yeah, directors interpret how a story will be directed. But they often don't write the story that is being interpreted, and yet the criticism or praise is all aimed at them while the writers never come up, which is stupid. Someone was recently telling me about Scorsese's great range compared to people who write their own films like Wes Anderson, and the example they used was how he went from Raging Bull to The King of Comedy in the early 80s. But the way he did that was by using different writers. For Anderson to be able to generate that range with his own scripts, he'd need to be capable of writing both films; a much taller order than just directing.



That's an ironic approach to the film, and I get that. That's how I "like" Street Fighter or The Room...

I was referring to people who were critical of the film like you, not ironic fans. They have to respond to it's perceived greatness before they begin to take their shots, whereas out here it's kind of like making fun of Britney Spears... or I don't know who the current generic hated pop stars are now, I guess Miley Cyrus? Most people don't need to open with not understanding why she's such a well respected musician.

I like Street Fighter too. That part where Bison escapes from Chun Li and gasses the room is one of the best scenes ever. No irony necessary.

There are other people here who actually like Street Fighter? People who I don't want to strangle with a garrote made of their own intestines, no less!

And that's right, I'm not posting anything of value or remotely on-topic here. So sue me.

/me sues prak

Yes, when I said it's great when someone both writes and directs films I was talking about how every film written and directed by the same person was great and not referring to how I have a better idea of the direction the films will take thanks to one person's creative vision having more control over the final outcome.

And yeah, directors interpret how a story will be directed. But they often don't write the story that is being interpreted, and yet the criticism or praise is all aimed at them while the writers never come up, which is stupid.

That can't really be helped though. Writers generally don't have too much to do with the final product once the film is completed. Plus, they're almost never involved in the pre-release marketing process. So outside of awards, it's understandable that they aren't praised or criticized as much. That's not to say that they receive no attention at all though...


Someone was recently telling me about Scorsese's great range compared to people who write their own films like Wes Anderson, and the example they used was how he went from Raging Bull to The King of Comedy in the early 80s. But the way he did that was by using different writers. For Anderson to be able to generate that range with his own scripts, he'd need to be capable of writing both films; a much taller order than just directing.

Or try his hand at directing someone else's script. Either way, the comparison is nonexistent. I'd even say that's unreasonable.


I was referring to people who were critical of the film like you, not ironic fans. They have to respond to it's perceived greatness before they begin to take their shots, whereas out here it's kind of like making fun of Britney Spears... or I don't know who the current generic hated pop stars are now, I guess Miley Cyrus? Most people don't need to open with not understanding why she's such a well respected musician.

But what you're talking is a Japanese interpretation of America's reception of Michael Bay's work, are you not? If that's the case, then you can't really consider Michael Bay well-respected. Popularity and respect are completely separate, and while Bay may make bank he is definitely not a respected film-maker. You make seem as if Japanese bloggers think that we Americans hold Michael Bay in high regard, but we really don't. So in truth, they're having the same conversations about his work as we are...or, at least it seems...


I like Street Fighter too. That part where Bison escapes from Chun Li and gasses the room is one of the best scenes ever. No irony necessary.

Oh, of course a healthy dose of irony is necessary. Without that detachment, we might fool ourselves into saying that either of the Street Fighter movies are good because they're so terrible...(Legend of Chun Li is INFINITELY worse!!!)

*-Man, we are WAY off topic...

That can't really be helped though. Writers generally don't have too much to do with the final product once the film is completed. Plus, they're almost never involved in the pre-release marketing process. So outside of awards, it's understandable that they aren't praised or criticized as much. That's not to say that they receive no attention at all though...Hence the reason why most writers try to become directors or only work with certain directors who understand their scripts.
Freelance writers on the other hand either don't care or just want to see their scripts be made no matter how they turn out.

Or try his hand at directing someone else's script. Either way, the comparison is nonexistent. I'd even say that's unreasonable.Most directors who do their own scripts do it cause they want total control of their story. They also don't want to get bitched at about how they misinterpreted a writers scripts knowing how they wouldn't like it either.

But what you're talking is a Japanese interpretation of America's reception of Michael Bay's work, are you not? If that's the case, then you can't really consider Michael Bay well-respected. Popularity and respect are completely separate, and while Bay may make bank he is definitely not a respected film-maker. You make seem as if Japanese bloggers think that we Americans hold Michael Bay in high regard, but we really don't. So in truth, they're having the same conversations about his work as we are...or, at least it seems...
No, he's saying that they -Japanese- criticize each movie as a stand alone work rather than automatically trash or praise a movie just cause certain directors made them. example: Spielberg = automatic praise

*-Man, we are WAY off topic...
Stay at the shrine long enough and you'll learn that we tend to do that often here! lol :)

Hence the reason why most writers try to become directors or only work with certain directors who understand their scripts.
Freelance writers on the other hand either don't care or just want to see their scripts be made no matter how they turn out.
Most directors who do their own scripts do it cause they want total control of their story. They also don't want to get bitched at about how they misinterpreted a writers scripts knowing how they wouldn't like it either.

There's a bit of a misconception here. The hierarchy in Hollywood is still so imbalanced that writers rarely have the kind of pull to cause a director any grief. If the director in question would happen to be that low on the totem pole, then he will get more problems from his producer than anyone else. Then it's a matter of how close the writer is to that producer...


No, he's saying that they -Japanese- criticize each movie as a stand alone work rather than automatically trash or praise a movie just cause certain directors made them. example: Spielberg = automatic praise

For the most part, no one does that to Bay in the form of praise or contempt. After all, the first Transformers movie he made was reasonably well-received (even if I didn't like it personally) and there's always a good review or two for his movie since the job of a reviewer is to keep an open mind. However, that doesn't mean that their exposure to Bay's tropes don't have an effect on their judgment. Truth is it probably wouldn't be a problem if he didn't fall back on the same tricks...


Stay at the shrine long enough and you'll learn that we tend to do that often here! lol :)

I love it here already...

Oh, of course a healthy dose of irony is necessary. Without that detachment, we might fool ourselves into saying that either of the Street Fighter movies are good because they're so terrible...

When I was younger I might have said it was so bad it's good, or that I enjoyed it ironically, but now I figure that if I'm genuinely entertained by something then I don't want to pat myself on the back as if I'm actually above it. I just file it away with 80s action, horror, faux-B movies, etc. If I ever make an action comic I'll probably be looking to ideas like Bison dollars and blowing up helicopters with yoyos before thinking about complex characters or consistent plot composition.


Also, with Scorsese, I guess I wasn't clear, but the comparison was being made because the person thought Scorsese had shown great range due to the differences in the two movies' stories. Scorsese was being given credit for the actual writing, and not his ability to work with different writers which... isn't really a noteworthy ability for a director who doesn't create their own scripts. You are right in that if Wes Anderson took on a script from someone he too would probably be recognized as having greater range and be given credit for the writer's work. And that's the problem.


I didn't want the Japanese example to go too far since it's just a statement of fact. You said Bay films don't have legs as well respected works, so i showed you a large audience for one of his films that has lasted over a decade, still ranks highly and is regularly described as a masterpiece. That's all.

It had nothing to do with bringing up a Japanese interpretation of the film's American reception. Most people probably don't know or care about what people outside of their country think about a film. I know I only found out how popular it was over there because it was shown on TV earlier this year and some people posted links to a comic I made while talking about it.

When I was younger I might have said it was so bad it's good, or that I enjoyed it ironically, but now I figure that if I'm genuinely entertained by something then I don't want to pat myself on the back as if I'm actually above it. I just file it away with 80s action, horror, faux-B movies, etc. If I ever make an action comic I'll probably be looking to ideas like Bison dollars and blowing up helicopters with yoyos before thinking about complex characters or consistent plot composition.

Though you'll have to add some depth for the series to have a chance at sticking around. But...have you thought of offering your input towards the Street Fighter comics...?


Also, with Scorsese, I guess I wasn't clear, but the comparison was being made because the person thought Scorsese had shown great range due to the differences in the two movies' stories. Scorsese was being given credit for the actual writing, and not his ability to work with different writers which... isn't really a noteworthy ability for a director who doesn't create their own scripts. You are right in that if Wes Anderson took on a script from someone he too would probably be recognized as having greater range and be given credit for the writer's work. And that's the problem.

This sounds like flat-out factual errors on the part of the person you were talking to though...


I didn't want the Japanese example to go too far since it's just a statement of fact. You said Bay films don't have legs as well respected works, so i showed you a large audience for one of his films that has lasted over a decade, still ranks highly and is regularly described as a masterpiece. That's all.

But that audience questions the quality of the film just as we do, and from what you're saying they don't consider it good either. The blog excerpts you gave were people disagreeing with the "masterpiece" assessment completely. So it really feels a lot like discussions about Bay's work in America. There's no doubt that people remember his movies, but they aren't really remembered fondly for the most part. That's the point I meant to make.


It had nothing to do with bringing up a Japanese interpretation of the film's American reception. Most people probably don't know or care about what people outside of their country think about a film. I know I only found out how popular it was over there because it was shown on TV earlier this year and some people posted links to a comic I made while talking about it.

...where is this link?

Though you'll have to add some depth for the series to have a chance at sticking around.

I'm pretty sure any comic I make will be forgotten a few years after it's done regardless of quality, but ignoring myself,something doesn't need depth to stick around, it'll just join the ranks of classics like Dolemite instead of Citizen Kane.


And yeah, blaming/praising a director for the movie's script is an error when it's not theirs. That's why I brought it up. Unless there's an example for every single criticism like what you mentioned for Transformers 2, it really doesn't fly.


The blog excerpts you gave were people disagreeing with the "masterpiece" assessment completely.

That's because I specifically looked up people who didn't like the movie to see how they criticized it. Nothing is universally loved, so you can do it with anything, for instance, did you know The Godfather Sucks? (http://jareddriskill.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/the-godfather-sucks/) But ultimately it's the amount of fans and the ability to attract new ones that determines how long a work's legs are. Last of the Mohicans has lasted nearly 2 centuries with people apparently laughing at it all the while.


...where is this link?

It was on 2ch where threads disappear shortly after they reach a thousand comments so there's no topic for me to link you to now, but this is the comic. (www.kiwisbybeat.com/minus37.html)

rezo, i read all of minus. i love it.

Eh, Bay's a bit of a cretin and I doubt that he's ever made a genuinely good movie, but he's not the bottom of the barrel. I dislike Spielberg a lot more than him, if that says anything.

Spielberg is one of those few directors that I only dislike a tiny handful of his movies really. I always look forward to a Spielberg movie as I just love what the guy does. Close Encounters, Raiders, Empire of the Sun and Jaws- all near perfect movies imho. Granted his best work is behind him but I even loved films such as Minority Report, A.I, Amistad and Munich. There's a certain feeling to a Spielberg movie for me. Wonder, excitement and suspense all coupled together with equal measures of humanity and emotion that may feel hokey at times but something that just wins me over.

Now, talking about Michael Bay... I would have loved to see a Spielberg directed Transformers. Yes sir.

Bay said he wants time off from Transformers, but the studio already has a date in mind for the third. Maybe by some stroke of luck it'll go to another director that actually cares about story over flash.

But more realistically - Bay will probably jump on at the last minute and it'll end up another rush job like the second one. Bleh.

I'm guessing no one has seen this yet... (http://www.avclub.com/articles/baywatch-the-hunt-for-meaning-in-the-films-of-mich,32009/)

I love how this thread is still active and kicking, when it was originally a parody if the "Is Uwe Boll unfairly hated" thread which is long dead. Heh.

well look at that (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if39271c89709c28eceb20163c74fc6f4)

The movie is pretty much a go, but I doubt they'll get everyone together for a 3rd. They might get some, but not all. I predict that the story will be about new rookies and either Smith or Lawrence -depending on who signs on- will guide them a-la MIB & Lethal Weapon 4!

why?

Learning about this and the looming threat of a Big Momma's House 3 (http://chud.com/articles/articles/20677/1/sigh-YESBIG-MOMMA039S-HOUSE-3/Page1.html) is enough to make the most devout question the existence of a god...

I'm just hoping it doesn't come out against the next Madea movie because there's only so much the world can take.

hahah, i lol'd hard.

After watching Transformers 2, no, the hate is justified. I was willing to let the first movie slide, because it could've been worse, but the sequel was honestly the worst movie I've seen in the past three years or so, no exaggeration. I actually liked The Rock for action movie standards, but after Transformers 2 I'm not touching a Bay flick with a ten-foot stick.

Rezo, could you clarify one of your assertions at your leisure. Specifically, you cite directors are criticized (or given credit) for things they are not responsible for. I may be mistaken, but in terms of a movie, isn't the director responsible for everything? Granted, he/she delegates tasks (editing, cinematography, music, script, etc), but doesn't the director have the option (if not duty) to fix something?

Also, I don't think its fair to hate Michael Bay. Though, disliking is perfectly fair.