Didn’t Alexander Payne do that in the Napa Valley?
Do people even come out of Michael Bay films thinking it was a good film? I mean, are mainstream viewers even satisfied? He doesn’t have a single film on rateyourmusic rated higher than 3. His highest is The Rock at 2.89. On IMDB the Transformers movies are at 7.0, 5.9, 7.2, The Rock is 7.3, and Armageddon is 6.3.
We’re talking like this is some sort of mainstream audiences versus critics thing. Mainstream audiences don’t even like his movies that much! They just go to see them because they’re drawn in by the visuals and star power. They come out thinking, ‘eh’.
I guess it doesn’t matter so much whether people like his movies, as they go to the theaters to watch them. As long as he posts a net return on Dreamworks investment, he can pump out all the Transformers movies he wants. There will always be a teenage audience for then.
If it’s so easy then why doesn’t he make an art movie ? I would rather watch grass grow than his mind numed CGI orgy flicks.
It must be hard making his films with his head firmly implanted in his asshole.
GO MICHAEL BAY!!!! EXPLOSIONS, HOT CHICKS, GUN FIGHT, QUICK CUTS, FADE TO BLACK….SLOW MOTION…..FADE TO BLACK…..SLOW MOTION…..BOOM!!! BSShH fkljdsklfjklsfsfm, BRAWW!!! I AM MEGATRON……WHO ARE U WITHOUT ME!!, SAM!! SAM!!! BOOOM!!!! BRAWW!! NOOOO!!!!
BAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t wanna close my eyes, I don’t wanna fall asleep cause I miss you baby….and I don’t wanna miss a thang
CREDIT ROLL……
MICHAEL BAY IS ART, NOT HIS MOVIES, BAY HIMSELF IS ART….. how critics acutely dismantles every single film of his IS AN ART, how all of you people out there finding your own way of criticizing Bay IS AN ART……ROWWWNNN
Wow, I remember this thread.
So, who else has heard the “Frankenheimer is Bay’s real father” rumors and that fact that JF denied it is why Bay is so angry?
And Dzimas, it wasn’t Napa Valley, it was the Santa Ynez Valley (25 mins above Santa Barbara) where Payne shot Sideways.
Off-topic: he does so many explosions, his head should too!
Scanners-style!
This is my second favorite thread of all time.
I think Bay was saying that just to watch Mubians freak out.
Like he cares, with all his millions.
In 100 years, Michael Bay will be revered for the genius that he is. His brilliance is so incomprehensible to us mere mortals that it will take generations of evolution for the human species to appreciate his contribution to cinema.
You mean, devolution.
yeah probably
I think part of what he might mean is more that when people see a film is set “at a winery in the South of France,” their instinctual response is “Oh, this is Art!” but when they see a film is about robots fighting they think it’s popcorn trash… which I agree with (his point, that is), and which frustrates me
Yeah, I think that’s part of it—it’s easy enough to call up signifiers of “art film” or “social importance” without necessarily having anything of substance behind it.
Though that example doesn’t seem apt at all. I’d think that setting more likely to be a romantic comedy a la Nora Ephrom’s “The Holiday” more so than anything else.
^Wasn’t The Holiday a Nancy Meyers film?
lol
“think part of what he might mean is more that when people see a film is set “at a winery in the South of France,” their instinctual response is “Oh, this is Art!” but when they see a film is about robots fighting they think it’s popcorn trash… which I agree with (his point, that is), and which frustrates me”
That is a very charitable reading. and why does it frustrate you? Do you have a hard on for talking robot movies? ;-)
I’ve also noticed that the directors who cosign Bay generally(and yes there are exceptions, so don’t bother listing them, there are exceptions to everything), tend to be cold, workmanlike technicians like Kathryn Bigelow. I’ve never seen a director of any real substance praise him.
I used to work with a guy that loved Michael Bay and thought he was an amazing director. His knowledge of film history was incredibly poor though, and he never made it in the business, which is simply poetic justice in my view hahah.
I think Bay is one of those guys that validates the necessity of separating form from content in academic analysis. His shots can be technically impression, occasionally, but they are completely empty.
Yeah I have a pretty strong fondness for this thread, too. It would make a pretty good introduction to Mubi.
Do you have a hard on for talking robot movies?
Oh man…
I’ve also noticed that the directors who cosign Bay generally(and yes there are exceptions, so don’t bother listing them, there are exceptions to everything), tend to be cold, workmanlike technicians like Kathryn Bigelow. I’ve never seen a director of any real substance praise him.
You just mentioned one. Kathryn Bigelow is everything Michael Bay is not and then some. Cold and workmanlike does not describe her at all. Some of her choice in material may be questionable but the strength of her direction is not.
^I agree. I’m not a huge fan of Bigelow but she’s been making films long before Michael Bay even knew who Aaron Burr was. If there’s anyone who’s cosigned Bay’s aesthetic, it’s Peter Berg.
Peter Berg always struck me as Tony Scott trying to do Ridley Scott. Not a complement, by the way.
lol
Well I’ve always felt Bay was just the continuation of Tony Scott (probably because of their connection to Bruckheimer).
All his films look like an Aerosmith video from the 90’s, It’s called defending humanity Michael with a story. I can’t wait to see his subtle filmmaking skills thrust on cultures, ordinary people, idiosyncratic narratives. Shut up, you are a company man to the bitter end. Go hawk more corporate products to bovine America with your art.
bovine America
?? That’s a new one.
Yeah I liked that, too! :)
Jye Sherwell
Well a big production like “Transformers” would certainly be a tough shoot I’d think. Lots to deal with.
However just because he could easily shoot an “art film at a winery in the south of France” doesn’t mean it’s gonna be good.