ULI: Whether he is ‘qualified’ to make the point shouldn’t be relevant if his assertion is right. Most of us just don’t think it is. And i disagree the reason the acting is bad in Bay’s films is because he must work around special effects. The man has 15 years experience in the game. In that amount of time he should have been able to get a few decent performances. His films are driven by special effects, but that’s no reason for the fluff—the important stuff in good directors films—to be so awful.
He can’t get decent performances because he doesn’t know how to work with actors and hasn’t taken the time to do so because he is so mistakenly locked into the visual effects. It is his fault.
He’s a bad director, there is no arguing that point.
But it is a fact, when you have an effects driven film it is harder for everyone on set, that’s just how things are.
Ask an actor, ask Natalie Portman, about acting to nothing there, delivering one line at a time, or going through a scene with another actor to react to, and see what she says.
The fact is that the logistics are more complicated is a effects film vs a performance film.
Now I have experience as a crew member on both types, and the time spent on an effects film is wearing on the whole crew. After you shoot actors, you have to shoot empty frames, then shoot frames with green/blue screen over the effected sections on the frame, all while keeping the lighting in mind and consulting with the visual artist on set to make sure that everything will jive. It is a time consuming process, and another giant ball to juggle.
Now, I do not really enjoy big blockbuster visual effects films, I’d rather see a story heavy film, but having worked on both types, I fully understand what goes into the process.
And small art house films are by no way easy, but the effects films take a lot of time, it’s the nature of the beast.
It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood—perfect for playing tourist in your own town and doing some rubbernecking at the Transformers 3 location. No matter your opinion of Michael Bay or the Transformers franchise, it was pretty darn impressive to get some peeks at the set and the sheer scale of it: three-quarters of a mile of a downtown city street blocked off, blackened and overturned cars littering the street and sidewalks, and realistic-looking piles of rubble and torn-up asphalt all up and down the stretch. It looked like a war zone. Caught some very brief glimpses of cars and cameras moving through it. No explosions or anything really cool, but it was still fun just to see some of it and get an idea of the logistics and cost involved.
During the week and next weekend they’re supposedly going to be filming in even more major parts of the city. I didn’t see the second movie, but, dammit, will probably have to give in and check this one out to see what parts of the city I can recognize in it.
Part of me agrees with Bay. The difficult thing about shooting a so called “art” film that he doesn’t take into consideration is the budget. If you have studio backing and a large budget, of coarse shooting an art film would be a piece of cake…It’s money issues that make it hard. (And I mean it’d be a piece of cake to MAKE it, not to concieve it which is where the real genius is required)
I can appreciate and enjoy both “art” films and “blow shit up” films…I firmly believe all films are art, no matter what they’re like. And I also believe people bash Micheal Bay a bit to much. I’m certainly not deffending him, and I’ll probably get alot of heat for this anyway, but there is alot of difficulty in making blockbusters and there is also a lot of intelligence that needs to be put into it. Most people bash his films too much too. They’re not the greatest but a few of them I found rather enjoyable. I’d certainly rather watch Bad Boys 2 than some stupid romantic comedy or a Twilight movie…
Now as I said I’m not being Bay’s defender here, i’m only saying, every kind of film is difficult to make, some reasons for it being hard are different and some are the same.
I think alot of people are way to close minded in their view of what film “should” be… Over all, movies should be fun! There’s alot of different perceptions of what “fun” is from person to person, and Bay’s films are fun to a certain type of people just as Jules et Jim is run to certain types of people.
And then there’s me who enjoys just about everything. The only thing I really hate is films like The Blind Side…Their generic, used up plot, and takes itself SO seriously, and everyone praises it…Grinds my gears…
Anyway I just realized i"m ranting…
“I think alot of people are way to close minded in their view of what film “should” be… Over all, movies should be fun!”
You mean a lot of people her on Mubi, right? The majority of moviegoers love “fun” movies, and are close minded about seeing “art” films. Actually, I think most people here on Mubi are pretty open minded in their viewing, while being properly close minded when handing out praise.
“You mean a lot of people her on Mubi”
Actually I didn’t specifically mean Mubi, I ment the world of cinema fans in general. And it works both ways in my opinion…There are “art” movie fans who would never even give a blockbuster the light of day, and casual movie goers that would never give a Resnais film the time of day either.
But that’s only a portion of moviegoers, while another fair portion is open minded and open to watch anything without a pre proposed bias on whether the film is good or not.
When watching a film, in my opinion you have to see the film on it’s own terms. Each film has a different agenda, you have to ask yourself if it accomplishes what it tries to accomplish.
Just my opinion.
In my experience, “art” movie fans usually end up seeing quite few blockbusters due to family and friends with mainstream tastes. They just don’t usually like them.
The idea that you should see films on their own terms is debatable. I prefer to see them on my terms and judge them that way but that’s me.
The thing about some being biased has come up here a lot. For me, there is not enough time in the day to see every film, read every novel, or listen to every CD. I have to make hard decisions not to see things that don’t look interesting to save my wallet and my sanity. There was a point when I would just see anything in case it might have some worth but after years of occasional entertainment and mush disappointment I’ve developed y own radar system to ensure that practically everything I see satisfies my needs. It may not be democratic, but, for me, it’s extremely pragmatic.
I understand most of your points, especially your first. I had to see that new Eclipse movie last night…GOD! What a horror.
And what I ment by seeing a film on it’s own terms was like you have to accept it for what it is. That does’nt mean you can’t also have your own terms in judging whether or not you liked it once the credits role. All I’m trying to say is that when the film starts, I try to understand the type of movie I’m watching and judge it according to what the film’s goal is. If the film’s goal is just to make you laugh and not much else, that is how I will judge it. Did I laugh alot? Stuff like that.
And I also understand and agree with your last point… The whole bias thing though had to do, really, with Micheal Bay, the originality of this thread. People have a nasty bias towards him and his films like crazy. I believe a number of his films are good. They aren’t trying to change the world they’re trying to entertain, and some of them, atleast for me, accomplish that.
I don’t think he’s a great filmmaker by any means I just think cinema lovers target their animosity towards him way to much…There are alot of less talented people making movies today.
I agree that there is too much discussion of Bay here and elsewhere. He is only one of my targets:)
What I hate probably the most in action movies today is CGI taking over everything that used to be done by hand. Like gun shot wounds…It drives me crazy when I see CGI gunshots when they can use squibs. As long as Micheal Bay keeps making REAL explosions and doesn’t just entrust 99% of the movie to computer specialists, his films ain’t THAT bad.
I just like to know that effort and difficulty were put into action films… I like to know they got their hands dirty, and sweated a little to make a fine film, not just made it in a studio with green screens and things of that sort.
CGI just doesn’t look right to me, for the most part. I may not be able to pinpoint specific moments but something just feels off when it is used extensively. I think it has ruined any appeal horror films may have had as well, again, for the most part.
Know what you mean about the horror films. I’m not against CGI if its used for something you’d NEVER be able to make without it…But to use cgi for something that’s been done for years without it just fine is ridiculous and just plain lazy to me.
And I noticed people were talking about Yo Gabba Gabba on here…I happen to be a fan, so I’m quite offended. ha just playing but I do find it hilarious.
CGI is most obvious when it’s something organic in motion. The eye is so attuned to natural organic movement that even with mo-cap there is still something lost in translation that they’ve yet to solve.
When it’s used for backgrounds (as in Zodiac ) and the like, I’m usually surprised to learn CGI was used at all.
Well, with some things it’s a Catch-22. Take The Hulk, for instance. The Hulk must be 10 feet tall and cannot be played by a wrestler. The problem is that, no matter how well done the CGI is, our eyes tell us it is bad because we know such a thing as a 10 foot tall green guy is impossible. The one in the trailers for the last Hulk film looked worse to me than the Ang Lee deal.
That being said, none of this effects me too much because no filmmaker i respect uses CGI extensively.
Get ready for Enter the Void.
“no filmmaker i respect uses CGI extensively”
I wish I could say this… Johnny To uses alot of CGI for gun battles now, though, his action scenes are orchestrated so perfectly I sort of see past it for the most part.
Also in John Woo’s “Red Cliff” there are alot of (obviously fake) cgi shots of the massive armies. Sort of made up for it though with some pretty old fasion action heavy scenes.
Sorry Josh, I missed your previous post somehow.
“When it’s used for backgrounds (as in Zodiac ) and the like, I’m usually surprised to learn CGI was used at all.”
This is very true.
“Get ready for Enter the Void.”
I still haven’t found a cheap enough copy of Irreversible so that i can drag up the old thread about it and offer an objective reading. By my current calculations I should see Enter the Void in 2017:)
I think Bay is probably correct. Making an art film is just not on the same level technically or financially as something like Transformers. Think about how much time, money & manpower those films take. If you are making an art film, you can hire a writer for a much smaller amount of money and come up with something interesting and it won’t be too hard to shoot it. Someone who makes big budget movies is taking a far bigger risk than someone who bares their soul in a film. I mean, let’s get real here. If you had the choice of being responsible for a $200 million film with pioneering technology that is hardly being used, or shooting an insightful low budget film for $500,000. What is really more difficult to pull off? Plus it is easier to make money on a small film like that, if you make a hit and it takes in 6 mil dollars you are rich. If your $200 mil movie only makes $150 mil you’re screwed. It is like saying that running a giant corporation like a major bank is harder than running a mom and pops store. I’d have to agree.
Yeah, he’s right. There’s more physical labor and logistical problems involved in creating a blockbuster. Wasted physical labor and useless logistical problems.
And he’s also right because he sees art as a genre, and easy only in terms of sweat. By his fucked way of looking at the universe he’s absolutely right. It’s easier to make shitty Juno(art genre) than Shitty Avatar (action).
He would be wrong if he was talking about creating a lasting work of art that actually mattered. That requires the investment of your soul, which is far more taxing and valuable than the 200 million dollars he and his buddies flush down the drain everyday to create their garbage.
Why? Just because?
You’re assuming he doesn’t put his soul into his work, but maybe his soul is just different from yours!
Right. Vapid and meaningless.
Wait, I think I just said that Michael Bay puts his soul into his films. I reserve the right to retract that in the future.
He has no soul. Haven’t you noticed the wigs and makeup? He’s a ginger.
And I don’t believe in any ‘art genre’ :/
“You’re assuming he doesn’t put his soul into his work, but maybe his soul is just different from yours!”
Well, the guy who makes my McNuggets may put his soul into them, but that ain’t soul.
Besides Mike, it is not like the guy making the McNuggets. It is more like the guy who conceptualizes and invents the idea of having a mass chain of fast food restaurants all designed a certain way to bring in the most customers. Someone who engages in that level of design is perhaps not spiritual, but he possess an ability for conceptualizing and technological mastery far beyond either you or me and I think that is worth something. I mean, does Thomas Edison have soul? If it wasn’t for people making technological breakthrough, no artist could utilize these methods to shed their soul.
Whoever said every movie HAS to have a meaning? Other than to entertain.
I’m going to repost what I wrote a page back:
When you talk about the logistics of making a crap blockbuster explostion/green screen flick vs a small performance/cinematography based art house film, yes Bay is right, then if they throw in 3D, then the logistics are even more demanding. Plus producers are even more prying on the script process and in the production because so much money is involved. But for the most part the blockbusters have little to any artisic value (especially Bay’s works), because they have been dehumanized by the process of getting the film made.
The critic’s shit on Bay’s work because it’s fluff and has no redeeming value, it’s 2:15 out of your life and $15 out of your pocket (sans going to the concession counter). So, basically, in his jealously, Bay is saying “It is hard damn work to be this shitty.”
But it seems that you all are ignoring what goes into the filmmaking process and just killing the messenger.
Bay is less a director than a cat herder and that shows in his work. The logistics of the visual effects distracts Bay from getting the performances he needs from his actors and it’s just one of the many issues that Bay has.
Nolan has done the small films and the larger ones, just as Scott, and being able to fall back on the lessons learned on smaller films have allowed them to better manage the larger films; Bay has only done big films and lacks the knowledge on how to better work with actors and crew (which is infinately larger than the crew of a small film.)
Bay is not wrong in his declaration, he’s just not qualified to make it.
& from higher on this page
& yes I’m a jerk
Even Michael Bay makes fun of Michael Bay. No one should be trying to make excuses as to why he should be taken even the least bit seriously.
Also, and not that I don’t believe it happened, but does anyone know the source of that quote…?
I actually quite enjoyed that commercial. lol. He knows what his appeal is and he’s proud of it. Nothing wrong with that…