Why Does Everyone Hate On Michael Bay?

[Deeko]

you guys keep asking and making assumptions about me, and I have to keep clarifying what you don't want to understand. You assume it's snobbery, I think you're foolish to make such assumptions.

....says the silly hypocrite that thinks anyone that likes a Michael Bay movie is "a simple individual". You make just as many assumptions about people in this thread as others make about you, so before crying about it, maybe you should examine your own posts a little bit harder, sport.

 

[zinfamous]

....says the silly hypocrite that thinks anyone that likes a Michael Bay movie is "a simple individual". You make just as many assumptions about people in this thread as others make about you, so before crying about it, maybe you should examine your own posts a little bit harder, sport.

yes, that's fair

when it comes to online personalities, it's usually an accumulation of things and this is just one of them.

depending on what I recall, it takes several things, I suppose, to go in getting what I would expect out of certain posters. I'm honestly not as bad with that as I come off here, but it's different in RL.

this is just one thing, but for me, it's a pretty good metric that covers a wide array of tastes. it works for me...what can I say?

we all make assumptions about others in these forums; it's unavoidable.
whether or not I were to look down on someone's taste in movies doesn't translate to the same opinion with other issues. Quite the contrary.

 

[Queasy]

I think people who feel he ruined transformers need to go and watch the source material. It was good when you were 12 but it's just cheesy and bad as an adult. The 1986 animated movie was horrible. They killed off a bunch of characters just so they could release the dinobots. WTF is that shit?

If you mean new characters (aka toys) like Rodimus Prime, then yes. If you mean the Dinobots, then no. The Dinobots made their debut in the first full season of the original Transformers cartoon.

[takes off nerdhat]

 

[Anubis]

If you mean new characters (aka toys) like Rodimus Prime, then yes. If you mean the Dinobots, then no. The Dinobots made their debut in the first full season of the original Transformers cartoon.

[takes off nerdhat]

Me grimlock approves of this post

 

[busydude]

How can any one assume jealousy behind MB's hate is beyond be. No gives a shit about how much money he makes, if you think making money== a good director they are beyond retarded. I am jealous of the likes of David Fincher, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata.. and I bet they made far less money than MB.

The same goes for actors.. DDL makes far less money acting than, say, Will Smith.. and yet Will Smith can never become as good of an actor as DDL.

The problem with MB is that he spends the money in all the wrong places.. you can make a good action movie too.. not all actions movies have to so dumb. Instead of spending ton of money on CGI... he could hire some good screen writers.. why is he so obsessed with exploding shit all the time.

 

[Deeko]

No gives a shit about how much money he makes, if you think making money== a good director they are beyond retarded.

A lot of executive producers are "beyond retarded" then.

You do understand that hollywood is a business, yes? The purpose of business is to make money. Whether you personally like the movies or not - from the perspective of the people investing in the movie production, Michael Bay absolutely is a good director - his movies make tons of money, and that's what he's hired to do.

Look at the second Transformers movie - universally attacked by critics, but it has earned over $600,000,000 more than its budget. That's success, whether you like it or not, and I'm sure the producers are pleased with their choices.

 

[zinfamous]

A lot of executive producers are "beyond retarded" then.

You do understand that hollywood is a business, yes? The purpose of business is to make money. Whether you personally like the movies or not - from the perspective of the people investing in the movie production, Michael Bay absolutely is a good director - his movies make tons of money, and that's what he's hired to do.

Look at the second Transformers movie - universally attacked by critics, but it has earned over $600,000,000 more than its budget. That's success, whether you like it or not, and I'm sure the producers are pleased with their choices.

I don't think anyone argues with that point. Especially when it comes to producers. I've always considered the Bay/Bruckheimer team the duo of shit. Honestly, I find Bruckheimer alone far more enjoyable for silly stupid reasons than I do Bay--and again, that is because bay is a complete klutz behind the camera, on top of his short attention span.

making money doesn't make them good directors--I limit that term to define quality. It makes them successful directors, It makes them highly employable. Of course the studios like them.

The thing is that Hollywood has decided that the demographic that matters is the young dumb male crowd. They took over after Star Wars went bonkers, and now the studio model is to hedge your annual budget on 3 or 4 major blockbuster summer flicks, damn the budget and damn the content, it must make bank.

They still put out plenty of good stuff, yet it is the crowd that considers the only movies worth watching--the summer blockbusters--that tend to become quite vocal and butthurt when their gloeriously shitty movies are scoffed at the Oscars and chided by the critics. ...I wonder why they care so much? At the same time they get mad that others look down on such taste, defend themselves with "hey, it's just a stupid movie, you shouldn't expect Shakespeare, noob! lulzzz!" and in the next breath "hey, I don't like critics, they just don't know a damn thing about movies!"

I mean, really....who cares more about this essentially pointless argument?

 

[busydude]

Look at the second Transformers movie - universally attacked by critics, but it has earned over $600,000,000 more than its budget. That's success, whether you like it or not, and I'm sure the producers are pleased with their choices.

This is the same argument my roommate makes.. when we talk about this. Do you go into a theater expecting how much money it is making.. or to enjoy what is being shown on screen?

So, your love for a movie is directly proportional to the box office collection.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Michael Bay usually makes special effects shows with good to great acting, and then terrible or horrible stories that have very little to do with reality.....

Don't get me wrong, Armageddon is awesome because Bruce Willis is a badass, but, that doesn't make him a "good" director...

 

[jhbball]

Michael Bay usually makes special effects shows with good to great acting, and then terrible or horrible stories that have very little to do with reality.....

Don't get me wrong, Armageddon is awesome because Bruce Willis is a badass, but, that doesn't make him a "good" director...

All Michael Bay films can be reduced to special effects and aircraft carrier shots.

 

[Deeko]

This is the same argument my roommate makes.. when we talk about this. Do you go into a theater expecting how much money it is making.. or to enjoy what is being shown on screen?

So, your love for a movie is directly proportional to the box office collection.

Someone is paying for those hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in tickets - which means someone must like the movies. "Good" is a subjective term with which to judge a director. I go to a theater expecting to enjoy it - as does everyone else - and if a movie is grossing that kind of money, a lot of people must be enjoying it, otherwise he wouldn't continue to sell so well. He might not be "good" to you, but he's certainly "good" to a lot of people, and therefore "good" to his employers and the actors he hires.

 

[Deeko]

The thing is that Hollywood has decided that the demographic that matters is the young dumb male crowd. They took over after Star Wars went bonkers, and now the studio model is to hedge your annual budget on 3 or 4 major blockbuster summer flicks, damn the budget and damn the content, it must make bank.

They still put out plenty of good stuff, yet it is the crowd that considers the only movies worth watching--the summer blockbusters--that tend to become quite vocal and butthurt when their gloeriously shitty movies are scoffed at the Oscars and chided by the critics. ...I wonder why they care so much? At the same time they get mad that others look down on such taste, defend themselves with "hey, it's just a stupid movie, you shouldn't expect Shakespeare, noob! lulzzz!" and in the next breath "hey, I don't like critics, they just don't know a damn thing about movies!"

I mean, really....who cares more about this essentially pointless argument?

There are PLENTY of hollywood movies that cater to other crowds. You just don't hear as much about them - you know why? Less people see them, and less people enjoy them.

Again - that doesn't make them "bad" movies, either, because this is a purely subjective topic. However, movies that cater to the crowd aren't implicitely "bad" because a lot of people like them, either. That's been my point for several posts now - the anti-Bay crowd wants to toss labels around, but that's idiotic, for the reasons I just mentioned.

I don't have a problem with critics. I just don't care what they think. I'm not going to skip a movie because it has a low score on RT, and I'm not going to go see one just because it has a high score, either.

 

[BurnItDwn]

There are PLENTY of hollywood movies that cater to other crowds. You just don't hear as much about them - you know why? Less people see them, and less people enjoy them.

Again - that doesn't make them "bad" movies, either, because this is a purely subjective topic. However, movies that cater to the crowd aren't implicitely "bad" because a lot of people like them, either. That's been my point for several posts now - the anti-Bay crowd wants to toss labels around, but that's idiotic, for the reasons I just mentioned.

I don't have a problem with critics. I just don't care what they think. I'm not going to skip a movie because it has a low score on RT, and I'm not going to go see one just because it has a high score, either.

I think the point Zinfamous was trying to make is that movies are not entirely subjective. There is a good amount of objectivism when it comes to movies.

Thus, bad movies are bad movies weather or not people like them.

I admit to liking many bad movies, but I'm not foolish enough to say bad movies are good, as that would be counterfactual.

 

[Deeko]

I think the point Zinfamous was trying to make is that movies are not entirely subjective. There is a good amount of objectivism when it comes to movies.

Thus, bad movies are bad movies weather or not people like them.

I admit to liking many bad movies, but I'm not foolish enough to say bad movies are good, as that would be counterfactual.

Again - how you define "good" IS subjective. Michael Bay's movies have high box office numbers, excellent special effects, big name actors....to some, these are certainly qualifiers for whether or not a movie is "good", even if not to others.

Conversely, things like artsy direction and imagery, or an involved, "deep" storyline, might be requirements for "good" to some, and not others.

 

[jhbball]

I think the point Zinfamous was trying to make is that movies are not entirely subjective. There is a good amount of objectivism when it comes to movies.

Thus, bad movies are bad movies weather or not people like them.

I admit to liking many bad movies, but I'm not foolish enough to say bad movies are good, as that would be counterfactual.

This. Even Shyla Boeuf said Transformers 2 was a crappy movie.

Sidenote: Meet the Spartans was the #1 movie in America when it was released. Are we saying that this wasn't a bad film?

 

[zinfamous]

Someone is paying for those hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in tickets - which means someone must like the movies. "Good" is a subjective term with which to judge a director. I go to a theater expecting to enjoy it - as does everyone else - and if a movie is grossing that kind of money, a lot of people must be enjoying it, otherwise he wouldn't continue to sell so well. He might not be "good" to you, but he's certainly "good" to a lot of people, and therefore "good" to his employers and the actors he hires.

from a technical standpoint, which is quantifiable and completely non-subjective, Michael bay is a horrible director. His movies are so poorly edited with multiple incidents that break simple continuity (this is essential for his type of movies) and the over-indulging massive panning shots. He tends to cover this shit up by boom-boom or some car running into something and exploding.

it's like Homer editing that video and tossing in a star fade between every shot!


not to mention the vacant, emotionless acting.

You don't have to see or understand these things, I guess, but believe me--they are there. And plenty of people know it. If you ever get the eye to notice such things (sure it can be more of a burden at times), then it's hard to miss.

 

[jhbball]

Again - how you define "good" IS subjective. Michael Bay's movies have high box office numbers, excellent special effects, big name actors....to some, these are certainly qualifiers for whether or not a movie is "good", even if not to others.

Conversely, things like artsy direction and imagery, or an involved, "deep" storyline, might be requirements for "good" to some, and not others.

Something doesn't have to be "artsy" or "deep" to contain a coherent storyline.

 

[busydude]

I think the point Zinfamous was trying to make is that movies are not entirely subjective. There is a good amount of objectivism when it comes to movies. Thus, bad movies are bad movies weather or not people like them. I admit to liking many bad movies, but I'm not foolish enough to say bad movies are good, as that would be counterfactual.

Well put. I know Beverly Hills Ninja was a bad movie, but I love the cheesiness of it. Cos it meant to be watched that way!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Again - how you define "good" IS subjective. Michael Bay's movies have high box office numbers, excellent special effects, big name actors....to some, these are certainly qualifiers for whether or not a movie is "good", even if not to others.

Conversely, things like artsy direction and imagery, or an involved, "deep" storyline, might be requirements for "good" to some, and not others.

Good for a movie is just as objective as good when it comes to beer or wine.

And, like beer or wine, The biggest marketed and most "drinkable" brands tend to perform well, rather than the most flavorful.

Any beer or wine critic would tell you that you rate a beer or wine on a number of objective points, and you ignore everything else.

Personal taste determines if you like something or dislike something, but, critics analysis often explain the difference between a good or a bad movie....

And, every critic likes some bad movies and dislikes some good movies, simply due to taste.

 

[Deeko]

Something doesn't have to be "artsy" or "deep" to contain a coherent storyline.

Did I say it did, or are you Bay haters making more assumpsions? I was giving examples. I did not say or insinuate that those were the only options - in fact, my whole point is that there are an infinite number of definitions to what is "good".

from a technical standpoint, which is quantifiable and completely non-subjective, Michael bay is a horrible director. His movies are so poorly edited with multiple incidents that break simple continuity (this is essential for his type of movies) and the over-indulging massive panning shots. He tends to cover this shit up by boom-boom or some car running into something and exploding.

it's like Homer editing that video and tossing in a star fade between every shot!


not to mention the vacant, emotionless acting.

You don't have to see or understand these things, I guess, but believe me--they are there. And plenty of people know it. If you ever get the eye to notice such things (sure it can be more of a burden at times), then it's hard to miss.

Again - you are fully missing the point. There can be technical aspects of his movies that you don't like - but that doesn't mean the millions of people that like his movies care about those things. Which is exactly the point I've been making, over and over again. A "good" movie is purely subjective, it fully depends on what factors you think matter. Maybe, to a lot of people, having a big, cool explosion is more important than having less panning.

It seems to be difficult for you to comprehend that people have different opinions, and no matter how many passive-aggressive shots you take, that isn't going to change, and you aren't going to convince the masses that the things you care about are more important. I'm sorry you have to live that way, it must be frustrating.

This. Even Shyla Boeuf said Transformers 2 was a crappy movie.

Sidenote: Meet the Spartans was the #1 movie in America when it was released. Are we saying that this wasn't a bad film?

Are you truly trying to compare the box office success of Meet the Spartans to a Michael Bay movie? Transformers 2 grossed about 10x what Meet the Spartans did (on 6.6x the budget). If you want to take the angle that box office success defines how good a movie is, then that would make Meet the Spartans under 1/10th the movie Transformers was.

Nice try, though. And considering I really dislike Shia LeBeuf, I really don't care what he thinks about movies, either.

 

[Deeko]

Good for a movie is just as objective as good when it comes to beer or wine.

And, like beer or wine, The biggest marketed and most "drinkable" brands tend to perform well, rather than the most flavorful.

Any beer or wine critic would tell you that you rate a beer or wine on a number of objective points, and you ignore everything else.

Personal taste determines if you like something or dislike something, but, critics analysis often explain the difference between a good or a bad movie....

And, every critic likes some bad movies and dislikes some good movies, simply due to taste.

Actually, there is a massive difference between beer/wine and movies - price.

The mass-marketed beer is generally considerably cheaper than the "good" stuff. Are there people that legitimately think they like Budweiser better than some critically acclaimed IPA? Sure - but there's a whole lot of people out there that ackowledge they like a classy wine better, but they can't/won't pay the extra price.

Meanwhile, unless you're going to an IMax movie, you're paying the same ridiculous, inflated price for the smaller budget artsy movie as you are for the big budget action flick.

 

[jhbball]

Did I say it did, or are you Bay haters making more assumpsions? I was giving examples. I did not say or insinuate that those were the only options - in fact, my whole point is that there are an infinite number of definitions to what is "good".



Again - you are fully missing the point. There can be technical aspects of his movies that you don't like - but that doesn't mean the millions of people that like his movies care about those things. Which is exactly the point I've been making, over and over again. A "good" movie is purely subjective, it fully depends on what factors you think matter. Maybe, to a lot of people, having a big, cool explosion is more important than having less panning.

It seems to be difficult for you to comprehend that people have different opinions, and no matter how many passive-aggressive shots you take, that isn't going to change, and you aren't going to convince the masses that the things you care about are more important. I'm sorry you have to live that way, it must be frustrating.



Are you truly trying to compare the box office success of Meet the Spartans to a Michael Bay movie? Transformers 2 grossed about 10x what Meet the Spartans did (on 6.6x the budget). If you want to take the angle that box office success defines how good a movie is, then that would make Meet the Spartans under 1/10th the movie Transformers was.

Nice try, though. And considering I really dislike Shia LeBeuf, I really don't care what he thinks about movies, either.

You were the one who brought box office numbers into the discussion. I was merely bringing up the point that Meet the Spartans was a success, by your measure.

 

[KGB]

I blame MTV.

 

[Deeko]

You were the one who brought box office numbers into the discussion. I was merely bringing up the point that Meet the Spartans was a success, by your measure.

Firstly - I pointed out that box office success is a measure of success, not MY measure of success, you kids are still missing the point that there is no singular definition here. Secondly, I refuted your little analogy by pointing out that its box office performance pales in comparison to the true blockbusters, which pretty much wrecks your argument and thirdly, I imagine the investors that put out the $30 million budget are, in fact, pleased with the $83 million in revenue regardless of your inane drivel.

 

[zinfamous]

Did I say it did, or are you Bay haters making more assumpsions? I was giving examples. I did not say or insinuate that those were the only options - in fact, my whole point is that there are an infinite number of definitions to what is "good".



Again - you are fully missing the point. There can be technical aspects of his movies that you don't like - but that doesn't mean the millions of people that like his movies care about those things. Which is exactly the point I've been making, over and over again. A "good" movie is purely subjective, it fully depends on what factors you think matter. Maybe, to a lot of people, having a big, cool explosion is more important than having less panning.

It seems to be difficult for you to comprehend that people have different opinions, and no matter how many passive-aggressive shots you take, that isn't going to change, and you aren't going to convince the masses that the things you care about are more important. I'm sorry you have to live that way, it must be frustrating.

nah, dude, you're continuing to miss the point. Technically, he is absolutely a horrible director. Again, his fans don't have to know this--why would they? It's easy to assume that they know dick about making movies. He's sloppy through and through. He puts little attention into making a film cohesive, he seems to care very little about good editing. It's obvious that he doesn't need to, because he can keep force-feeding this crap to his fans and they'll eat it up. It's like Steve Jobs--love him or hate him, he's exploiting the masses with whatever angle it takes.

Technically speaking, good is very objective. The one thing that he succeeds in is that he finishes projects--which is certainly very important. (You can't really say the same about Terry Gilliam, who is a very talented, very skilled director.) That is one of the main jobs as a director. But making a movie "good" is entirely objective. Whether or not one chooses to like a good movie or a bad movie is entirely subjective. This is when taste is involved.

It's not an issue of liking or disliking the fact that he is sloppy when it comes to patching his movies together--it's simply bad. period. It's a fucking fact.

You don't see these things because you either don't know how to see them or don't care to. That's fine. Who cares? If you don't care about poor continuity (simply--a character walking from the right to the left of the screen in the next shot must be coming from the right to the left again, or through a door; something like that).

Again, this is very important. Simple things like that are very, very rarely broken, even in some of the most avant garde film, continuity is rarely messed-with. In dumb action movies like this, you end up with a confusing mess when you have cars from all sides where they shouldn't be.

he does this ALL THE TIME. he simply doesn't care, b/c he knows a giant boom boom will suffice to cross the neurons in his fans heads long enough for them to assume that this is all badass.

Simply, he is a very bad director in all of the technical ways that you can assess one's talent and skills for making film.


The only subjective view is coming form the fan--do I like this shit or not?