It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
TRANSFORMERS 2 is going to be made regardless of whether or not Bay is involved. And I can’t imagine Paramount replacing Bay with anybody that’s actually step up.
Best to keep him with Transformers and limit his exposure to other scripts that might be good with a different director.
Funny this “angry early morning post” comes only a month or so after his “angry late night post” about the producers taking too much credit. He did bow down in each situation but I gotta give him some props for being passionate and irrational in an industry full of brown-nosers. I can’t imagine anyone doing a better job at TF2. Who are they going to get? The b-listers, not going to name names, would simply do a worse job at it. And the a-listers, like Spielberg and Cameron, are off on their own projects. Possible another a-lister would have done TF1, but now that they’re off and running my guess is that Bay is the best that franchise is going to get. Plus it’ll be his chance to do the ultimate Transforming car-chase, which was never really accomplished in the first movie.
Transformers will be out on BLU-RAY in 18 months. As if someone would have bought the HD DVD when that sucker is released in Decemeber. So before TF2 comes out in the Summer of 2009. The folks on BLU-RAY will get to experience the ULTIMATE EDITION VERSION of the Transformers on that format. It always works out in the end.
I agree with you completely, Jeff. Hopefully he’ll just direct nothing but Transformers and Bad Boys movies for the rest of his career, rather than ruining good scripts.
I mean, there’s a chance that he might direct a good movie one day with the right script, but I doubt it. He’s done nothing so far to prove that he can elicit a single, human performance.
Any thoughts on what Transformers 2 would be about? More robots invading earth? Aliens? Bad people wanting to steal Transformers’ technology?
TF2 should be rather easy to make… it should be about the Decepticons trying hard to take over and creating the CONSTRUCTICONS to do so. You then would have GRIMLOCK (a huge fan favourite) and the DINOBOTS do what they do best — kick the only shit out of the Constructicons. I am sure there will also be more Optimus and Megatron as brothers sub-plot, that will tie into the overall plot of this trilogy.
Nevertheless, it’s shit such as this that makes visiting the net such a drag sometimes; “He’s done nothing so far to prove that he can elicit a single, human performance.” Let us all thank Noah for coming up with what dictates humanity and how Michael Bay should direct it. Golf clap.
I don’t dictate humanity. I dictate my own opinion. I just don’t think a single character in a Michael Bay film resembles any human being that I have ever met, aside from the fact that they are flesh and blood (for the most part). There is no nuance in the performances in a Michael Bay film. Would you care to differ? Were you moved by the plight of Will Smith throughout the course of the Bad Boys films? Or was it the character arc of Bruce Willis in Armageddon that you really empathized with?
Noah’s right. Not only does Michael Bay not understand human nature, he seems to have a certain contempt for it. His movies deliberately ring false at every turn… as if they’re making an argument that being shallow and empty are some kind of virtue. Whether we know it or not, a director’s films are representative of their world view, and if we were to sit down with Bay’s oeuvre, we’d see that his is one of aggression and materialism, which given the director’s history as an abandoned child, is really kind of pitiful.
His interviews remind me of the Tom Cruise scenes in “Magnolia.”
At the risk of receiving the irate spoutings of the Bay haters on this blog, I
At the risk of receiving the irate spoutings of the Bay haters on this blog, I
My apologies for the double post.
Disliking Bay doesn’t mean that you want every movie to be “Remains of the Day” or loathe all that is popular, but congrats on your straw man argument. All that it means, at least to me, is that you like your action scenes edited with a coherent sense of where things are relative to one another. Witness the aqueduct chase in T2, the parkour sequence from Casino Royale, or any action sequence from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Bay would have shot those in a way where the shots don’t gracefully build — instead, it would be disconnected images smushed together to bludgeon.
Also, yeah, the characters are inane.
Yes, of course a movie can be popular and good at the same time. Remember “The Godfather”? The problem is that Michael Bay’s movies just aren’t any good. I watched “The Island” recently. Whew. What a chore to sit through.
I agree with Bulldog – Bay may not be Cameron or Spielberg, but I can put on The Rock and just have a good time. For some movies, that’s good enough.
“The Bay bashing is the flavour of the month and everybody
I also enjoy the Rock and Armageddon though neither one make a lick of sense, but they’re better than the Da Vinci Code, and I think the book was emulating Michael Bay story/macguffin logic in a lot of ways.
I will say that I think Bourne Ultimatum and Supremacy, while both better films than the first one, don’t get enough credit for putting together such coherent and impactful action sequences using the quick cutting style. Bay’s films simply do not work as well as that, and I’ll take the shaky cam of Greengrass any day over the incoherent street fight at the end of Transformers.
There are many, many great action movies with interesting, relatable characters in them. Some have been mentioned in this very thread. None of them have been directed by Michael Bay.
The ‘if you don’t like Michael Bay you don’t like popular movies’ argument is nonsense. I love Raiders of the Lost Ark and the original Die Hard and most of the Star Wars movies and Terminator 1 & 2 and Jaws. I also like Casino Royale and Titanic and Independence Day and the Bourne sequels. The difference between those movies and any of Michael Bay’s is that they’re well-crafted on all levels – story, character, cinematography, editing – and they don’t insult my intelligence while I’m watching them, as every Bay movie (with the bare exception of The Rock) has.
Bulldog,
“The Bay bashing is the flavour of the month and everybody
You’re the only one who mentioned Grindhouse here, Nicol.
I think I’m being utterly consistent by favoring Bourne Ultimatum and Grindhouse to Transformers or any other Bay movie. The differences are, to me, crystal clear and my opinions are quite sincere, Nicol. Greengrass cuts a lot, but I can still tell where his characters are in relation to each other, while in a Bay movie it’s so much chaos on the screen.
I know Wreck. I wasn’t taking on anyone in particular. Just talking about generalizations in current film criticism.
GH got raves. Bay…does not. QT – ALWAYS – gets a free pass and a sloppy hand job no matter how mediocre the work. Bay gets hit too hard.
JeffMCM,
I do not argue that Bay’s work is not chaotic. I would argue it is organized chaos. It is not the work of a hack.
Bay is good at presenting a large chaotic battle and showing the smaller battles that are contained within them. There is more going on stylisticly then just random cuts.
I do like Greengrass but I would take Bay’s output over QT’s last few flicks any time anyday.
…because Tarantino deserves his good reviews and Bay doesn’t. Just because you disagree with the critics doesn’t automatically make them wrong, Nicol. Go ahead and try and persuade me otherwise, you seem to be uncharacteristically terse.
“Go ahead and try and persuade me otherwise…”
He he.
You try to persuade me QT deserves his raves. That argument goes both ways. Just because most critics agree with you does not make you right.
Well then, I think we’ve agreed to disagree.
To Anghus and Nicol D…”its been a looong fucking month” 🙂
I do agree that Bays frenetic ‘style’ sometimes just gets in the way of what would have been a great action scene. But I agree that sometimes Greengrass gets a pass for being ‘close to the action’ while Bay is ‘can’t shoot for shit.’Though I wish he would have just pulled the camera out in Transformers because it seems the scenes that got the best crowd reaction were more panoramic than up close and personal.
Bay’s stuff is not in the league as T2 or even T1 for that matter. Forget about Die Hard 1 or Lethal Weapon 1&2.
All this typing is just to say that I’m glad Bay’s making movies. We were quoting Bad Boys2 dialogue for weeks. The scene with Will Smith as the drunk uncle was fucking priceless, and you know its just for kicks. I got my ten bucks. I hope, though I know most of you will say that if he has’nt learned by now well then fuck it, but I do hope that he’s on for Transformers 2, that he and Speilberg try to a Jurassic 1 approach to Transformers 2, and we could well see a 400M, and Don Murphy will invite us all for some soggy fries.
Oh, the phrase is actually, ‘hee hee’.
If you think Bay is even in Tarantino’s league as a film director, you simply have terrible taste in films. I wasn’t even a big fan of KILL BILL I, but in it Tarantino trumps Bay at his own game, and by miles. The only thing Bay can compete with Tarantino at is in size of Ego. That one is too close to call.
But comparing Bay to Tarantino is just unfair to Bay. It’s like comparing John Grisham to James Ellroy. One is pop garbage, and the other is a hard boiled stylist.
If you’re going to compare Bay to other directors, it’s more fair to do it on his own terms. But if you compare Bay to say John McTiernan, again, Bay suffers in the comparrison.
And Bay bashing is hardly “flavor of the month.” It’s been going on for years (say, since The Rock) and is entirely justified.
The only reason it has gotten bigger lately is because Bay keeps sticking his foot in his mouth on his blog. And then having to retract after getting outside pressure.
There’s a scene in The Bourne Identity when Damon find a safety deposit box filled with cash, passports and a pistol. He empties the contents into a bag but inexplicably leaves the gun behind. This moment is more complex and courageous that ANY scene of any Michael Bay film. I’m talking 4 or 5 seconds from one action director compared with a 20 hours of another one.
As far as Bad Boys II… I believe the film to be pure evil. It is in no way connected to the human condition. It doesn’t just avoid truth… it declares war on it. As Peter Travers says, “The cinematic equivalent of toxic waste.”
I would echo the chorus of most folks here, talking about how Michael Bay is really just not that good of a director, but the truth is that he doesn’t provoke enough ire in me to really care. He has yet to take the reins of a project that I thought had real potential, except MAYBE Pearl Harbor, but every chance he’s gotten it seems as though he’s satisfied with mediocrity. The Rock was an entertaining flick, perhaps his best, but I wonder what it would have been like in the hands of Paul Greengrass. Pearl Harbor had a terrible script, to be sure, but maybe in the hands of Spielberg it would have been about more than just the visceral thrill of watch bombs blow up ships. Who knows what The Island would have been like in different hands?
But if people like Bay and his films, then fine, I’m not going to get bent out of shape arguing with you. After all, it’s just opinion, and mine is that Bay-bashing is justified until he makes something of substance. That doesn’t mean to not make a popcorn film, which I love as much as the next guy, but to make one where I actually care about the people involved.
At least Bay and Murphy know they are in the Big Mac business. They aren’t pretending that they deliver some form of high art, and I doubt that Peter travers’ long nosed opinion keeps them up at night. They do what they love, and they make money doing it.
As for Tarantino, sure I enjoyed ‘some’ of his movies, but he’s borrower. His movies are nothing but homages to other movies, and these pussyassed crtics lap it up because they want to appear topical and cool, so they annoint quentin as their quintessential wet dream and the saviour of cinema verite, while I firmly belive that quentin is at the back at the video store with his old buddies and laughing his ass off that he has these lap dogs in his corner. Quentin is just Bay with a smaller budget, it’s about ‘this’ll look cool on screen’ and a lot of times it does. Hey, anybody that can get Ving Rhames butt fucked deserves some props.
And as for ‘cinematic toxic waste’, well do you serve hot sauce with that?
Isn’t it almost more fashionable now to defend and praise Michael Bay, rather than criticize him? Sure seems that way to me. And I, for one, certainly didn’t just jump on a bandwagon. I saw Armageddon in theaters and have hated Bay ever since. I also find it hard to believe that he doesn’t lose any sleep over what people like Peter Travers write about his movies, since he took the time to respond to the movie critic at the Northwest Daily Herald. The argument that people who hate Bay movies want every movie to be a serious art house drama is just moronic. Bay has a style that is easy to hate.
i’ll take up that challenge. in nor particular order
1. aliens
2. die hard
3. terminator
4. empire strikes back
5. raiders of the lost ark (although i’m cheating by taking someone else’s idea from above)
Michael Bay makes good solid entertainment for the most part. He’s not trying to re-invent the wheel. I enjoyed Transformers, although I’m pretty sure any one of us could have come up w/ a better storyline that would have adhered to the cartoon/comics while updating it for our time…
The Island was a decent chase film. The Bad Boys films are just plain old fun…the Big Mac analogy is a good one. I don’t go for McDonald’s every day, or even once a month, but when I do, it hits the spot.
The Rock is a good action film, and is a little more nuanced than some of you are giving it credit for.
Yes, there are way better action films out there that have been popular w/ audiences and critics alike. Bay’s successful at what he does for the most part, and people respond. There’s nothing wrong with that.
(and Armageddon and Pearl Harbor suck balls)
“Oh, the phrase is actually, ‘hee hee’.”
Time on your hands, Jeff?
Stella,
“Isn’t it almost more fashionable now to defend and praise Michael Bay, rather than criticize him? ”
I am willing to entertain that notion if you can provide me with links to serious film critics (like say 3 or 4) who are doing that. I don’t just mean a positive review of Transformers either, I mean a few serious critics who argue that he is not the hack people say he is.
If I had time on my hands I would have written a long explanation of why Bay sucks, but fortunately enough other people have done that for me. My ‘hee hee’ comment is just to help you out in the future.
By definition, if they’re ‘serious’ critics then they aren’t going to be trendy.
Jeff,
“By definition, if they’re ‘serious’ critics then they aren’t going to be trendy.”
Give me some names and we can discuss it.
“My ‘hee hee’ comment is just to help you out in the future.”
The blogosphere, nay, all of new media owes you an immense gratitude.
Wow Nicol. So you would take my statement seriously if I can find three “serious” film critics who are defending Bay? You would then tell me that I’m right? I will get right on that. I know how much you value the opinions of serious film critics. By the way, I wasn’t talking about serious film critics when I initially made that comment. I was talking about places like this blog.
I can’t help you Nicol, because I am unaware of any critic, serious or otherwise, who doesn’t think that Bay is generally crummy, even if they liked Transformers, as Roger Ebert and Armond White did.
I guess if Harry Knowles counts as a critic…
I have a friend who does the “hehe” thing and it drives me nuts, so I give jeffmcm that one. (Sorry, it just reads like a dirty old man snickering by an alley.)
As for Bay…Really? This needs debate?
Crow and Noah: Again, you two now dictate what’s human? You have to be unbelievably narcissistic to believe that you — in all of your infinite wisdom — can sum up WHAT IS HUMAN. Humanity has a lot of flavours to it. Seriously; take a fucking sociology or anthropology class before you make such haphazard statements about HUMANITY or a human director directing humans.
Oh yeah, Jeff, you like torture porn. SHUT IT :)!
Come on gang, The Rock is just as empty as Bay’s other fare. The script is built on the notion that patriot soldier Ed Harris would hate his own government enough to threaten to wipe out the civilian population of San Francisco. This central idea makes no sense whatsoever and only a second rate storyteller would even attempt to breath life into such a false premise.
At least with the similarly plotted Under Siege, bad guys Gary Busey and Tommy Lee Jones were absolute psychopaths. The filmmakers there had the good sense to make some sense out of the nonsense.
IO, I can’t believe I have to tell you this again: I’m not dictating what is human. I am dictating my opinion. You disagree with it, that’s fine. Call me names, whatever. I don’t like Michael Bay. I have not met many human beings like the ones portrayed in Bay’s films.
My problem is precisely what you point out, “Humanity has a lot of flavours to it”, then why do Bay’s films draw characters as only black and white. They’re either good or evil. There is no in between in a Bay film. I get it, you like him. I don’t. Let’s leave it at that because it’s really not worth it to argue about someone like him.
Crow, if i remember the rock correctly, it was JUST a threat, Ed Harris was bluffing. And when some of his soldiers realised he would’nt pull the trigger, thats when things got all apeshit.
But here’s a thought tha might make you shudder, maybe Bay might learn something from Spielberg and who knows, soemday he could have his Aliens, Terminator or I dare say, an Academy award winning Titanic. It would be a fanboys wet dream to see Bay take on a period piece, a la Lord of the Rings.
Either that or he could go back to directing Lionel Ritchie videos.
A period piece like, say, something set in the 1940s?
IOIOI: calm down, we all know what your majors are now. I will say that Transformers is a better movie than Saw II/III if that makes you happy.
Do we really need to get into name calling over this? Some people like Big Macs. Some people realize that they don’t resemble anything close to real food and are gross. Why can’t both be correct and we can all move on?
Jeff; unlike you I take an interest in humanity. That would mean I would have a problem with a movie where innocent women are ripped apart for my shits and giggles. Shut it :).
Noah; Poland let you write for MCN and you come with that lame garbage, that anyone can come with online. There are all types of people in this world, and some are not as complex as you would like. The problem I have with you, stems from your argument that dictates (Opinion my ass. It comes across as an argument as to why Bay sucks as a director) Bay does not know how to achieve a real HUMAN PERFORMANCE in his films. How lame is that? Seriously; HE’S A FUCKING PERSON! Inherent to humanity is the ability to be HUMAN with everything you do. Your entire argument seems based around this inane statement that Michael Bay’s films lack humanity, when in fact humans help to CREATE THEM!
This has nothing to do with my LIKE or DISLIKE of Bay. This has to do with my general dislike of people like you that post this ridiculous bullshit online and expect people to just deal with it. Really? I am supposed to deal with this crazy bullshit about a director — whose human — not being able to get a real human performance out of other humans? Hmmm? Really? Again, what’s human Noah? Good to know that you think that you can dictate what’s human in your OPINIONS. Jesus; you should have gone with GOD instead of NOAH, that would at least explain this silly bullshit.
“The Rock was an entertaining flick, perhaps his best, but I wonder what it would have been like in the hands of Paul Greengrass.”
It’d still be a piece of nonsensical shit.
The thing is, Greengrass would never touch it, which is the biggest difference between him and Bay. Taste.
I enjoyed Transformers for what it was, but most likely due to Spielberg’s influence(as opposed to Bruckheimer, for once).
To Noah re: “I have not met many human beings like the ones portrayed in Bay’s films.” and “then why do Bay’s films draw characters as only black and white. They’re either good or evil”
Do you know any charcters like Hannibal Lector, Indianna Jones, Melvin Udall(As good as it gets), any character from Kill Bill, John McLane, Sarah Connor.
As for movies where characters are either good or evil see Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Lethal Weapons, in fact almost every action movie made. You will have to think hard to come up with action movies that don’t subscribe to this template, and the ones I immediatley come up with are Braveheart, Gladiator, Aliens and I’m sure other posters will volunteer other names.
Generally, when you have a movie that delves deeply into character ambivalance it isn’t called an action movie, it’s called drama.
Also forget to mention that I just saw Stardust and I think its a gem of a movie. Why this wasn’t a christmas release to benefit from all those great box office days is beyond me. (Though I guess they may have looked at the competition.)
I’m just sorry that in the ‘dog’ days of august, more people did not find this film.
Bulldog, I totally agree on Stardust. It’s been the best time at the movies for me this summer – I went twice last weekend (and I very rarely ever see anything twice in a theater). I wish it would become some kind of sleeper, as more people should see it.
IO, keep calling me names and telling me you don’t like me if that somehow makes you feel a little bit better. I’m not going to take the bait. Whether or not I write for MCN has nothing to do with an argument about why I don’t like Michael Bay’s films. Lots of people have similar opinions, but because I write for MCN by opinion on that particular topic has to be super interesting and controversial? Please.
You seem to be missing my point when I bring up the word “human.” My point is not of course, that they aren’t flesh and blood or actual human beings, my point is that they do not act like in a manner that I would imagine, say, a guy who has been in prison for thirty years behaves(The Rock) or the way a man who drills oil for a living who goes to space for the first time would feel (Armageddon). Of course, I don’t know how these people would feel in these situations, but I could guess based on the reality of the world that Bay fits. And in order for his films to have real consequences and weight, I must believe in that reality and in those characters being true to that reality.
Your argument that human beings direct humans to make a film so that makes the characters “human” is so obviously missing the point that I was trying to make, that I didn’t think I would need to elaborate on. But I tried to clear that up for you. The bottom line is that it does all come down to opinion and you clearly don’t respect mine and you clearly don’t respect me for some reason. That’s fine and if that’s the case, then either e-mail me and tell me why you have such an issue with me or we’ll just agree to ignore each other. We’re supposed to be have discussions about film here and from the jump, you tell me how I’m an asshole. The discussion is over at that point because we’re not having a talk, we’re having an internet bitchslapping fight and I refuse to resort to that.
Bulldog: the characters in those movies are human beings realistic to the world created in those movies. They also have motives and nuance for their actions beyond just “they are good.” I don’t think the “black and white” issue is something that Bay is the only culprit for, but it’s not something I enjoy in films. I like shades of grey and you don’t get that at all in a Bay film. But that’s fine, thats what you sign up for, popcorn fun. I just wish the popcorn tried a little bit harder.
Noah; I really do not spend anytime thinking about you. I dislike this argument — the same with ME’s argument about Big Mac’s — because it’s inherently fucking stupid. Smart folks should not be down with such stupidity. It surmizes that you are the guardian of what’s HUMAN, a HUMAN PERFORMANCE, and FOOD! It’s a silly fucking argument, that I refuse to take seriously.
Again; it has nothing to do with you being an asshole. It has to do with what you post, reading like something an online asshole would type. You want Bay to try harder at shades of grey? There are grey characters in his films. Buscemi in Island for one and damn near the ENTIRE CAST OF THE ROCK AND ARMAGEDDON.
If you want to have an opinion, then have an opinion. An opinion does not require any follow-up. It requires to you state how YOU feel and that’s all. Yet, look at you defending your argument, and you will see the only problem that I have with you… defending this nonsense.
Noah, I agree with you.
No, IOIO, it’s you. You defend the indefensible.
If you didn’t care for my opinion, IO, then you could have explained why you disagreed rather than launching into a vicious personal attack about why I’m stupid. Defend your own opinion rather than call me idiotic. You are an online bully and being mean and speaking loudly doesn’t help you get your point across. In fact, it deflates it. Even now, you refer to me as an online asshole when I have said nothing similar about you.
Now, you want to talk about movies and our opinions? Fine, then. The entire cast of The Rock and Armageddon were not grey. There were good guys and bad guys in both of those films, the line was very clearly delineated. The motivations of those characters in those films were Hollywood motivations. Bruce Willis in Armageddon, the first time we see him on screen it might as well just say “THE FUCKING HERO” below him. Do you really think that in Bay’s films, he’s giving the actors any tips as to how to play their roles? Personally, I think he’s spending more time with the pyrotechnics people. Just tell me which performance in a Michael Bay film you found particularly interesting. Was in Martin Lawrence in the Bad Boys films? Was it John Turturro in Transformers? Instead of telling me why I’m stupid for my argument, why don’t you tell me what your argument is when it comes to Michael Bay?
“I don’t think the “black and white” issue is something that Bay is the only culprit for, but it’s not something I enjoy in films. ”
Most films traffic in B & W characterizations to some degree. It just depends on where you start your frame of reference in film history.
Most films that are considered ‘grey’ are equally B & W, they just choose more politically correct subject matter to do it with. So if Bay shows military types as overwelmingly good, he is seen as B & W. However if Jarhead shows military types as overwhelmingly incompetant or sophomoric, it will be considered ‘grey’. It is not and for a film to truly be grey is much more difficult then generally acknowledged.
FYI, the best review I’ve ever read about Armageddon is to be found at Matt Dessem’s The Criterion Contraption. I’d provide a direct link but I know DP doesn’t like them.
Jeff,
That’s acutally really well written. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is a good justification for why Criterion put out Armageddon.
I’ll check out that blog more often.
Out of curiosity, what don’t you agree with? I promise not to turn your response into a long and annoying argument.
I think the real reason Criterion put it out is (a) to make a deal with Buena Vista Home Video to also then put out Rushmore and the other Wes Anderson movies, and (b) because it made financial sense and gave them funds with which to use for stuff like Ivan’s Childhood and Symbiopsychotaxiplasm.
Nicol, I agree with you that most films traffic in good guys and bad guys. But, it’s the performances in Bay’s films that I have issues with. There is no nuance and it sounds like the actors are reading lines as opposed to speaking colloquially. And it should be the director’s job to either edit or have somebody else write a line of dialogue that doesn’t sound true when the actor says it. But I just don’t think he finds actors to be important and it shows. While most films have characters that are black and white, it is the ACTING in Bay’s films that are black and white and you would hope that the actors would be encouraged to find something interesting to throw up there, like Depp in Pirates for example.
Jeff,
Actually what you said is what I mostly believe. I think the Armageddon Criterion release came at a time when studios were beginning to release their ‘art’ films themselves on DVD and Criterion was hurting. Armageddon was a win-win for everyone. Gave Criterion money and the film credibility.
That the article doesn’t go into this is what I disagreed with.
I actually only saw the film once, thought it was okay. Not horrible, not great, just okay and never saw it again.
I think the article doesn’t go into that subject because Matt doesn’t really care.
Back when Armageddon came out, I was looking forward to it – I had enjoyed The Rock well enough, but my blockbuster anticipation was pretty much destroyed in the movie’s first five minutes with the absurd character played by Eddie Griffin playing the destruction of NYC for laughs and the lame joke involving the dog and the Godzilla toy (another example of Bay’s high insecurity levels).
Yeah, that Eddie Griffin thing really sucked. Not much debate on that.
Noah; why dont you read what I type and not what you infer from what I type? That would help in this discussion because I stated you were ACTING like an online asshole. Does that make you an asshole? No.
Also; I would respond to your argument in person in the same fashion as I do in this forum because it’s beyond stupid. It’s the height of moral superiourity and pompusness, that geeks all-around use in their responses towards certain actors, writers, directors, and producers. I simply will not sit on my hands as you post such gibberish. Again, this does not mean that I think you are stupid… far from it. I simply think that argument represents the worst aspects of the internet. If you would like to calm the fuck down for a moment and stop acting like you are getting attacked — when all I am doing is responding to you honestly — then we might get somewhere.
Nevertheless; It’s hard to get somewhere, when you post more drivel; “Do you really think that in Bay’s films, he’s giving the actors any tips as to how to play their roles? Personally, I think he’s spending more time with the pyrotechnics people. Just tell me which performance in a Michael Bay film you found particularly interesting. Was in Martin Lawrence in the Bad Boys films? Was it John Turturro in Transformers? Instead of telling me why I’m stupid for my argument, why don’t you tell me what your argument is when it comes to Michael Bay?” First off; Michael Bay is all over his set. He pretty much does not have a first assistant director because he likes being involved in every aspect of production. The dude is a lunatic. So… you are telling me that a dude who is all over a production only cares about the BOOM BOOM? Really?
That’s my argument Noah; it’s that you ASSUME too much. It’s that you base your arguments about Bay on your own myopic view of him as a director and not a guy who composes films. I would say that Bay’s frames are usually too full and his action can some times be incredibly muttled. I will even go as far as to state that the slo-mo walk is a bit silly now, and his love milarty hardware borders on the level of a fetishism. Yet, unlike you, my opinions are just that — opinions. You are making an argument about a man’s work based on very little knowledge of the man, and only speculation on what you think the man is about. Excuse me for not being LAME ENOUGH — like most people on the net — to let that go without typing a word. Which is what you are supposed to do, apparently, but I am never much for following the golden path. Like I need to follow a herd.
IO, you are doing exactly what you are accusing noah of doing. you are assuming what bay does on a set (unless you’ve been there yourself). he does too have an a.d. i’ve talked to him on several occassions.
you wanna argue that bay’s characters are more 3-dimensional then i would be interested in which ones and what they did to make them that way.
the most real i’ve seen is the family scenes in “transformers” and those were improvised on set.
“You are making an argument about a man’s work based on very little knowledge of the man, and only speculation on what you think the man is about”
Noah is clearly talking about what is on the screen, which is what ultimately matters.
Someday, years from now, there will be a reevaluation of Bay’s oeuvre and, in some iconoclastic circles, his work will be praised. Sorta like what happened to Norman Rockwell and Bouguereau. But it’s certainly not that time yet. His films continue to be deservedly mocked.
IO, I was never less than calm whilst responding to you or reading your posts. But it was hard for me to take any argument you made seriously when you would post gems like this: “This has to do with my general dislike of people like you that post this ridiculous bullshit online and expect people to just deal with it.” You weren’t saying that you disliked what I was doing, you were saying that you disliked ME because of what I was doing. And the truth is that anyone who doesn’t like another person because of a difference of opinion is ridiculous. I believe you were the one that got bent out of shape and were throwing around lines like “online asshole” at me.
Now, I’m happy that you’ve taken the time to write out an argument. But, I really don’t care what Bay does on his set if it doesn’t translate to the screen. Maybe he’s all over the place, doing everything and he’s a true auteur. That doesn’t change the fact that there hasn’t been a good performance in a single one of his films. I’m not trying to just state a universally-echoed statement, I’m trying to say that I agree with what most people say which is: Bay can’t direct actors, but his films look great.
You argue that I ASSUME too much. Well, isn’t that all we have when we watch a film? Our assumptions and opinions about what we think could have contributed to what goes on on-screen. Ultimately, I don’t care if Michael Bay is the nicest guy in the world or a huge prick. All I care about is what goes up on that screen and to me, he has yet to put something up there that I can get behind. If he does, then you can bet I’ll be screaming from the rooftops. As I’ve said in my columns, I never want to dislike a movie. I truly want Bay to make a great one with great performances to match the intensity of the action. It just hasn’t happened yet for me. I appreciate you being somewhat more civil in the conversation. And I never said that my opinion was anything more than just my opinion, you inferred that I was some kind of pompous douchebag just because I had an opinion that you didn’t appreciate. Let’s just be friends, okay?
We may be on to something here… from a sociological point of view Bay may be the most important director the decade. His movies tap into the spiritual emptiness of our culture… they exist outside of what we the elite think humanity is capable of. Maybe on a sophisticated level the guy is saying a whole lot about where we are as a society. Maybe this is a Kubrickain level of commentary on dehumanization we’re dealing with here. Maybe Bay like The Fool in King Lear is saying more about our value system with his gibberish than Scorsese or Mallick ever could. Maybe the less Bay’s movies mean, the more popular they become because America, the greatest civilization that ever existed, has figured out the most frightening thing of all… that there is no meaning to life and art that strives for meaning is false. That the only thing in life is pole dancers, explosions and rockin’ out to Aerosmith. Maybe Michael Bay is The Movie Messiah… the genius to end all geniuses…
… yeah and maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt.
nihilism as art
Bladiblah blah blah.
The only thing Bay can do well is an action chase scene on a highway.
There is a reason no actor wants to work with him. The guy is a class A jerk.
Who couldn’t make TRANSFORMERS into a hit?
Some of you people need to chill out and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN25hFa1rms
I like Michael Bay, btw.
Sofia Coppola?
i, for one, would kill to see a wes anderson’s “transformers”
Uwe Boll
Jim Jarmusch.
“Muttled” is a great word, like “slithy.” I’d like to use it sometime, if you don’t mind.
What does it mean?
Baz Luhrmann’s Transformers-a-go-go would probably not be a hit.
what a ridiculous conversation.
the enjoyment of movies is PURELY subjective, visceral, personal. the only thing that you, the viewer, really knows is that YOU did or didn’t like that movie, past that, you know nothing. derriding someone or insinuating that they’re slightly moronic for liking a certain movie or director is pompous and absurd. who bloody cares who likes what by whom?! it’s you alone in the dark watching a story and you either connect or you don’t. for some, Bay’s bombastic, overblown actioners are devoid of nuance; for others, they are good fun. so if you don’t like Bay, don’t watch his movies. if you can’t stomach Speilberg, don’t watch his movies. complain if you want that you wasted ten bucks cuz the film didn’t float your boat but don’t insult someone and call them a consumer of shite because they liked ‘dude, where’s my car?’ and you didn’t. frankly, it’s simply egocentric. to each her own for fucks sake.
To Leahnz: Heres a slice of cheesecake to go along with your slice of truth. However there is some fascination to defending what you love and justifying why you hated a movie. Its what movies were meant to do, inspire conversation, though calling someone stupid or moronic for liking/disliking a movie is well…stupid and moronic.
I often wonder however, that aside from critics whose job it is to see every movie, why do Bay bashers keep showing up to his flicks, especially if you’re already convinced that his films are ‘toxic waste’. Are you guys gluttons for punishment. I believe that since Under Siege 1 Steven Segal hasn’t made anything worth my while, and so after Hard to Kill, and with the exception of Executive Decision, (I cheered audibly in the cinema when he died), I haven’t seen a Steven Segal movie since.
So if you don’t like Big Macs, don’t go to the mickey d’s. And if you do, don’t complain because that’s what you ordered. God Forbid, I hope people are not complaining about big macs and they actually haven’t tasted one for awhile and are just repeating what their friends have said. God Forbid.
well, that’s a catch 22 on this site, bulldog. you claim you haven’t seen the movie and then your opinion about it completely gets dismissed. i knew someone in “transformers” or i probably would not have seen it.
leahnz, i don’t recall seeing anyone claiming someone was stupid or moronic for liking bay films. they may have said bay films were stupid and moronic, but that’s another fish altogether.
Doesn’t seem like anyone answered the original question – “Is This Good News?” I thought it was something along the lines of – when a director whose merits are hotly contested (as seen above) backs the HD format in the Blu-ray vs. HD war – is that good for HD? Or more nearly – how much influence does Bay really have in the HD DVD war?
But then, do the opinions of the film community matter in this war – the actors, writers, directors, critics/bloggers, etc? Would their influence fall along the lines of how popular they are or aren’t, or does the fame/infamy line get blurred into gross points for celebrity? Or is the ultimate victor all about smoky backroom politics and payoffs? Or?
I think it’s great news that Michael Bay is speaking out about the ridiculous format war that hurts consumers and filmmakers and can’t help the companies (unless they win!)
I don’t know which is better, but I do know that so long as their is a format war, I ain’t buying any of that stuff, and neither will most consumers.
Maybe if more filmmakers like Michael Bay spoke out – hopefully in favor of settling on one format, whatever that format is – it would help everyone in the end.
hendhogen, no one flat out called anyone stupid or moronic for liking Bay films, it’s all in the insinuation and attitude. Some posters here seem to consider their opinion the ‘enlightened’ one, and if someone disagrees there are rebuttals about ‘substance’, ‘quality’, ‘character’, blah blah blah, it come across as rather snobbish.
My point is that the concepts of substance, quality, etc when it comes to the enjoyment of movies are totally subjective. much like beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder. i’m all for discussing movies and expressing your feelings about them, but arguing about whether a movie is good or bad is pointless, there is no right or wrong opionion. I once had to break up a nasty argument about ‘vanilla sky’; one person really liked it and one person really didn’t, and the person that didn’t brow beat the person who did about how bad it was until it all went pear-shaped. possibly the stupidest fight ever.
i would say you can like a bad movie, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a bad movie. while i agree there are subjective elements to liking/disliking a film, there are also objective elements (ala poor sound quality).
for instance, someone would be hard pressed to convince me that “cool as ice” was a good movie.
is that the vanilla ice movie from the days of yore?
of course no one could ever convince you it was a good movie because YOU obviously didn’t like it and thought it was a piss-poor excuse for a movie, that’s exactly my point. but someone out there probably thought it was way cool and came out of the cinema feeling all jazzed, so for them it was a good movie, and you could not convince them otherwise. you aren’t wrong, they aren’t wrong, this is what i’m trying to convey, perhaps not very well but i’m making the effort.
things like sound quality, etc, are not likely to influence the way a person feels about a film; my sense is that our human reaction to movies is visceral and flaws in a film we get a kick out of don’t negate the feeling of euphoria it gives us. when did you ever come out of the cinema thinking, ‘wow, that was great, i really enjoyed that!… but the sound mixing was below average…’