This was touched on on someone elses page last night but I figured why not start it here. Is MICHAEL BAY really as bad a director as he is said to be by most or is it just a question of taste? Now I am no lover of Michael Bay films but I will admit that I found Bad Boys, The Rock, Transformers 1 and Pain or Gain enjoyable. Hell, I liked them. Didnt love them, but liked them. To me, Bay is often Tony Scott without story. When Bay has good material his films are a little better. Is it him, or his writers? He is known for having a lack of story and character development but isnt that the same as almost 90% of big action films? When people defend The Expendables movies to me when I say they are big and dumb arent those films just as guilty as Bays films? When someone says Pacific Rim was great! It was a big giant monster versus big giant robots movie. What did you expect? Well cant the same thing be said about Transformers? That they are big giant robots fighting big giant robots movies. What do you expect? When I really look at his films, I for one am often amazed at the scope and the size of what he attempts. You have to be a certain kind of person to take on movies like this. Is it really him who is to blame? Is the direction REALLY that awful or can some of it be thrown on the writer, the editor or the studio? Is it fair to trash someone just because they dont make the kind of art that we find artistic? Is his stuff formulaic? Sure. Is it often dim? Yes. Is it cliche? Most of the time. But does it entertain people for a few hours? Well the record shows...a big yes. Does most of the hate really come from the fanboy thing? I dont remember the hate being that major for Bay when Bad Boys and The Rock were made. People seemed to like those films. It seemed to happen when he made Transformers and then started Platinum Dunes and remaking horror classics. He started messing with material that was important to people and he didnt meet their standards or expectations. Is the hate for Bay more about WHAT loved material he is attempting or is it about his film making? No one seemed to cry over Pain and Gain. Most people I know who bothered to watch it felt it was fun. So explosions and action sequences with little character work or story is suddenly a bad thing? Yet we all love movies that fit that same mold. Just the other day people were telling me Con Air was awesome when I find it to be just as terrible as Bays big dumb action films. Im just trying to figure out. Is he really BAD at what HE DOES? To me...not at all. What he does is what HE DOES. And hes been very successful at doing it. Some people love Picasso. Some people love Caricatures. If it makes someone smile, whats the harm? No one is raping your childhood. Your childhood doesnt have an anus. Your childhood is right where you left it. In the past, with traces of it in your memories. What happens today does not effect the past. Those films, comics, cartoons are still there today to be enjoyed as they were before Michael Bay got the rights to them. Its not like Transformers was ever MASTERWORK. It was a toyline and a mediocre cartoon made to sell toys to kids. Im not really defending Bay but I think Im not gonna trash him anymore. I want story and character in my films. Doesnt mean everyone does. Usually when I find a movie I love that has masterful story and character people say it is boring and sucks and Im an idiot for liking it. So what do you think? Is Bay REALLY bad at making movies? Or is it simply you dont like his style and taste or is it that he has in your eyes, shit on stuff you loved as a kid?
Posted on: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:25:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015