Michael Bay

ghostryder

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Got into a few Michael Bay discussions with some fellow members at a 4th of July celebration this weekend. I don't really have a huge problem with his directing, and I know he wasn't the writer, but story moments like the "jive talking" robots in Transformers 2 were pretty groan worthy (then again, I may not be the target audience). Here's what prompted it all:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/9491-Leave-Michael-Bay-Alone

http://io9.com/michael-bay-movies-or-why-your-eyes-love-what-your-br-1600584661
 
He ruined a property (Pearl Harbor) that should have been a home run if not a grand slam if done properly and made it into a sacrifice bunt. And then he got butthurt when Disney wasn't happy with him or the results.
 
His films of the 80s and 90s are some of my favourite of all time, but I think he probably peaked with Armageddon.
 
I liked Armageddon as well. Unfortunately much of it appears to have been an accident
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/22/michael-bay-apologizes-for-armageddon/
I will apologize for Armageddon, because we had to do the whole movie in 16 weeks,” Bay says. “It was a massive undertaking. That was not fair to the movie. I would redo the entire third act if I could. But the studio literally took the movie away from us. It was terrible. My visual effects supervisor had a nervous breakdown, so I had to be in charge of that. I called James Cameron and asked ‘What do you do when you’re doing all the effects yourself?’ But the movie did fine.


The thing is...the movie did have it's flaws (I heard that NASA was actually using it at one point as part of their training program, to see how many things trainees could point out that were wrong or completely impossible), but in spite of that, I thought it was a really enjoyable movie. Makes you think...for all we harp on studios and how executives need to butt out, it certainly does seem that sometimes insane directors do their best work early when they keep em on a tight leash.
 
I'm a massive transformers fan but I refuse to go near anything he's involved in, they even ruined the last game of a trilogy tying it into his turd of a movie series.
 
While I do fault Michael Bay for having extremely bad taste and completely not understanding the source material, he's still doing what he's being paid to do.

If there's one thing I learned from Transformers, JJ's Star Trek and the DC movies, it's that studios will do anything to ensure that their "critic proof" property stays the way it is. If a movie is a success financially, they'll stick with that same exact production team until the team decides they're either done or if one of their movies doesn't do well. We won't see this huge money making franchise in the hands of other talented folks who actually want to do something different with the property because that would entail risk, and the studios don't want to risk losing their money makers no matter how stupid, how reviled or how dumb it is. Same thing is happening at DC/Warner Bros with their movies. Zach Snyder and David Goyer have literally been given the keys to all of DC's property only because Man of Steel was a financial success despite being a critical mix. And Paramount is letting Roberto Orci, a film writer who isn't even critically acclaimed in his own profession direct the next Star Trek film despite having no experience in the field and being on hot ground with some of the fan base.

And yeah. The audience plays a huge role in it. I saw the first Transformers in the theater and found it to be very disappointing. It literally felt like everyone involved had no idea what the story wanted to be or what direction the franchise wanted to go. I never saw another Transformers movie in the theater and everything else that I've done in acquiring the movies has been through buying them used. Now you're probably asking "Jeyl, you goof. Why buy them in the first place if I don't like them?" Pspsps. That's a silly question.

Now, what do I really think of Michael Bay? This video sums up everything.


He has no passion when it comes to talking about his own profession, and he can't even wing it when something goes wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, if nothing else, he seems to definitely have his finger on the pulse of what people want to see, regardless of what's considered "good" by the rest of us. The box office numbers make that point abundantly clear.
 
Let's go down the list of movies he has directed:

Bad Boys
The Rock
Armageddon
Pearl Harbor
Bad Boys II
The Island
Transformers
Pain & Gain

I actually like Bad Boys and Bad Boys II.

I very much HATE the Transformers movies.

The rest are just ok.

Basically, if the Transformers movies just gave the Autobots more individual personalities and stories to develop them as viable characters, I might not consider him that bad of a director.
 
I liked The Rock and Armageddon and really like The Island. Pain and Gain was a really interesting turn for him. Not a great movie, but very different.
 
Bay is all about the spectacle - not about the story. The story comes second - for him, its just a way to tie in a bunch of spectacular shots together. The problem is - he's good at it. Very good at it, in fact. Everytime he makes one of these movies, everyone hates it, complain about the story - and yet people flock to see it, and it makes a ridiculous amount of $$. It just does my head in - he's gotten to a point where he could basically produce a turd, and it'll make $300 mil.
 
I'm a girl. The movie was filled with attractive buff men who often wore tiny tank tops. The fact that they were dumb as bricks just made it better. :)
 
I just don't understand why he can't have the Baysplosions AND character development. James Cameron does it. Everything is a broad stroke cartoon with Bay. His movies are junk food. But I was ambivalent toward him until the Island, and then...Transformers. The racism, frat boy objectification of women, OUTRAGEOUS product placement, moronic pandering to youth, and general cheese (a car thief, really?) just made me feel insulted. I don't need everything to be Citizen Kane (hey, I like AVP:R!) but Bay's Transformers movies made me see him in a very different, very negative light. I actually walked out of the first Transformers because I was so angry at how relentlessly effing stupid it was. So I can sit through Armageddon or the Rock, they're fun enough movies I guess, if forgettable. But if the Island was merely weak, Transformers was just the work of such a thorough hack that I actually found myself angry. The fact that these movies make a fortune really mystifies me.

Having said that, the man is rich as god. I don't fault him for churning out crap because people keep buying it. He's selling a product customers want. We all need to earn a living, and he earns a good one. But again, Cameron makes a living too, and with at least a smidge of intelligence and artistic integrity. You CAN have both. Bay just seems either incapable (in which case he's a hack) or he doesn't care to bother (in which case he's a lazy, disrespectful hack).
 
Last edited:
The only film of his that I've ever found even mildly entertaining was The Rock. I have no memory of Bad Boys or Bad Boys II. I'm not even entirely sure I saw the 2nd one. Armageddon was a piece of ****. Transformers 1 was a toilet-clogging piece of ****.

Let me put it this way. I hate Devlin/Emmerich films, but there are some of them (e.g., The Patriot) that I can watch and laugh at (others I flat-out refuse to watch). This is because Devlin/Emmerich productions at least seem to be earnestly trying to tell a story, albeit terribly, and they take themselves seriously. Michael Bay, on the other hand, has nothing but contempt for his audience. I think he aggressively tries to make as stupid and incoherent a film with as many off-putting qualities as he can, but with big, loud visuals, and while he's doing it, he's saying to himself "And you ****ing cretins will STILL eat it up."

I think he intentionally tries to include elements that are simply disgusting, like cheesy racist stereotypes, crude "humor," and now, apparently, statutory rape jokes, too. He strikes me as a loathsome director (I can't speak to his attitudes as a human being, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was also a loathsome person in general), and I get the sense that he doesn't actually like his job, even. I think he likes making money, though, he's discovered a nearly sure-fire way to do it, and he will continue to do it until people finally get sick of his schtick or someone comes along and one-ups him.


In conclusion, **** Michael Bay.
 
I'm not sure if I was even aware of him prior to "Pearl Harbor", but that movie was so insulting - to the memories of those that were there, and the intelligence of moviegoers - that I wrote him off that day and haven't seen a single Bay movie since.
A friend dragged me to the theater to see "Transformers", but it was such an assaulting cluster**** that I went to sleep.
I don't really care what he does to silly cartoons I never watched as a kid.
But to dishonor the memories of the brave men and women of Pearl Harbor by giving them a backseat to a bad fictional romance is unforgivable in my book.

And don't get me started on "Windtalkers"...
 
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top