Why Does Everyone Hate On Michael Bay?

[Deeko]

Its amusing how riled up you guys get by the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint.

I've pointed out numerous other definitions of what people find "good" about a movie. As I've said above, you seemingly want to discredit those definitions because they don't match your own. You continue to attack and make assumptions, which frankly, is not helping your case. Just because you want to insult people with different opinions than you doesn't make your opinion more accurate.

The fact is - your last line is the most important one. What factors the person watching uses to come to that conclusion vary widely from person to person. Maybe, in your warped view, you think everyone needs to care about the factors you do, such as continuity. However, sadly for you, this is not the case - the vast, vast majority of people really don't care what zinfamous thinks. And this is why Michael Bay enjoys his continued success as a director. I'm sorry if that fact upsets you this much, but its not changing just because you want it to.

To me, and to most people, a "good" director makes a movie that I enjoy watching. Its as simple as that.

 

[zinfamous]

Its amusing how riled up you guys get by the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint.

I've pointed out numerous other definitions of what people find "good" about a movie. As I've said above, you seemingly want to discredit those definitions because they don't match your own. You continue to attack and make assumptions, which frankly, is not helping your case. Just because you want to insult people with different opinions than you doesn't make your opinion more accurate.

The fact is - your last line is the most important one. What factors the person watching uses to come to that conclusion vary widely from person to person. Maybe, in your warped view, you think everyone needs to care about the factors you do, such as continuity. However, sadly for you, this is not the case - the vast, vast majority of people really don't care what zinfamous thinks. And this is why Michael Bay enjoys his continued success as a director. I'm sorry if that fact upsets you this much, but its not changing just because you want it to.

To me, and to most people, a "good" director makes a movie that I enjoy watching. Its as simple as that.

How can I assume that his movies are poorly edited and mixed when the evidence is right in front of me?

you ignore everything I say to this regard. ...so, you have no experience with making movies, or really know what goes into making one? fine, good for you.

Do you not appreciate the fact that these are all very technical aspects that require shit loads of time and effort to put together, and just like any sort of project, can turn out piss poor or quite good?

anyone who recognizes this stuff knows that Michael bay is terrible in all of these qualities. it's a fact. again--care what you want, but you're still ignoring the main points that he's a complete technical klutz.

seriously--do you even know what I'm talking about when i bring up editing, mixing, mis-en scene, etc etc...would you know shitty lighting from good lighting?

The bolded: well, that's exactly what I've been saying. You seem to agree with me here, which means you must now accept the fact that good is objective from a technical standpoint, and what the fans bring into it is totally different. Again: you either like something that is good, or you like something that is bad.

I don't give a rat's ass what Deeko thinks, I jsut like to argue!

the only reason I carry on is that you haven't addressed a single one of my points. You continue to ask me what is good, how is it objective--I continue to tell you, and you repeat the same nonsense assuming that I actually care what you think.

do you get that?

 

[jhbball]

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.

Whooooooooooooooosh.

I really just wanted to verify "Meet the Spartans" cannot be labeled as "BAD", as that label is too subjective. Confirm?

 

[Deeko]

No - I didn't say that, insinuate that, or mean any of that. You can think his movies are poorly edited. Perhaps you're right. My point is a simple one - the level of detail put towards ensuring continuity in editing doesn't show up in everyone's list of what makes a good director.

Every post you make, all you do is insult my own personal knowledge of what makes a good movie, or what quality editing is, or my personal opinion of what makes a good movie. Frankly, sport, I have not actually expressed my opinion on those things. Maybe if you spent less time ranting and insulting people, and more time actually reading and comprehending things, you'd have seen that. I invite you to go back up and re-read my posts, maybe you'll do better next time.

Now...let me repeat this. Again. Real slow for you this time.

If you'd like, you can analyze his movies, and count up the number of editing or continuity mistakes there are in his movies. Maybe take that and plug it into a formula that gives you a number comparing editing mistakes to time, or budget, or something. Maybe, you, zinfamous, one person out of billions, uses that formula to determine if that is a good movie, and along with it, a good director. That's wonderful - good for you. I hope you take pleasure in your technical, quantifiable measure of movie quality.

However, there is something very basic that you can't seem to grasp. Perhaps you are so self absorbed that you can't understand people have a different opinion than you. Perhaps you think they agree with your opinion, but they are too stupid or unobservant to truly realize these things like you do. Frankly - if you think those things, you are wrong.

As I've said, many times, what truly makes a "good" director is a variable thing. Everyone has their own definition. I've given quite a few examples of things people may use for their definition. I'm not discrediting your definition - I'm merely pointing out that despite the quantifiable nature of your definition, plenty of people don't care about it. Even if they can point out a lack of continuity, or poor lighting...maybe they just don't care. And therefore, TO THEM, that person can still be a good director, even if they fail your definition.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

 

[Deeko]

Whooooooooooooooosh.

I really just wanted to verify "Meet the Spartans" cannot be labeled as "BAD", as that label is too subjective. Confirm?

Its bad to you. Its bad to a lot of people, I bet. I'm sure there are those that don't think its bad. To them, its good, no matter what your opinion is.

Its really that simple. A lot more simple than you are trying to make it.

 

[gimmewhitecastles]

I think this is a good analogy regarding Michael Bay.

Michael Bay movie : Artsy Independent Film
as
Energy Drink Advertisement Poster : DaVinci painting

The enery drink poster may have some semblence of art as in a DaVinci but it's intended purpose with all it's bright colors and large font is to gain attention and make money for source company.
That's why Bay's movies always comes out in the summer and is usually PG-13. That's when the kids are on summer break and are looking for something to do.

On the other hand, the artsy independent film isn't really meant for mass consumption and is usually targeted for a select audience, one that can appreciate its little nuances. The director doesnt really care about the rating and the film has a limited theatrical release.

 

[zinfamous]

No - I didn't say that, insinuate that, or mean any of that. You can think his movies are poorly edited. Perhaps you're right. My point is a simple one - the level of detail put towards ensuring continuity in editing doesn't show up in everyone's list of what makes a good director.

Every post you make, all you do is insult my own personal knowledge of what makes a good movie, or what quality editing is, or my personal opinion of what makes a good movie. Frankly, sport, I have not actually expressed my opinion on those things. Maybe if you spent less time ranting and insulting people, and more time actually reading and comprehending things, you'd have seen that. I invite you to go back up and re-read my posts, maybe you'll do better next time.

Now...let me repeat this. Again. Real slow for you this time.

If you'd like, you can analyze his movies, and count up the number of editing or continuity mistakes there are in his movies. Maybe take that and plug it into a formula that gives you a number comparing editing mistakes to time, or budget, or something. Maybe, you, zinfamous, one person out of billions, uses that formula to determine if that is a good movie, and along with it, a good director. That's wonderful - good for you. I hope you take pleasure in your technical, quantifiable measure of movie quality.

However, there is something very basic that you can't seem to grasp. Perhaps you are so self absorbed that you can't understand people have a different opinion than you. Perhaps you think they agree with your opinion, but they are too stupid or unobservant to truly realize these things like you do. Frankly - if you think those things, you are wrong.

As I've said, many times, what truly makes a "good" director is a variable thing. Everyone has their own definition. I've given quite a few examples of things people may use for their definition. I'm not discrediting your definition - I'm merely pointing out that despite the quantifiable nature of your definition, plenty of people don't care about it. Even if they can point out a lack of continuity, or poor lighting...maybe they just don't care. And therefore, TO THEM, that person can still be a good director, even if they fail your definition.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

thing is: I really wasn't trying to insult you in that way. All I was saying is "You may not see this, you may not be able to notice these things simply because you have not be trained to see them, exposed to this stuff, whatever."

Nothing unusual about that. The ave movie-going audience whizzes past this stuff without ever noticing it. The main point is that well-edited movies are seemless--you aren't really supposed to notice these things. I never was able to pick up on these things until I was trained to. After about 2 1/2 years of critical film analysis and shot by shot analyses and such. It is often a trained thing and as I mentioned--once you go there, it's hard to go back and yes, it can be more of a burden than anything.

when it's jarring (bad editing), when it brings you out of the movie space--that is bad.

and yeah...editing is on the list of those who judge the quality of directors as something that is very important. for the general audience? no. how many care about those awards at the Oscars? Are they important, yes, indeed.

 

[zinfamous]

On the other hand, the artsy independent film isn't really meant for mass consumption and is usually targeted for a select audience, one that can appreciate its little nuances. The director doesn't really care about the rating and the film has a limited theatrical release.

actually, all directors care about ratings. the difference between PG-13 and R could be 50 million dollars or more in revenue. NC-17 is suicide.

this is why the MPAA is such a dastardly contrivance.

 

[roguerower]

I blame communism.

FTFY

 

[djnsmith7]

Good movies on that list with the exception of Bad Boys II, as that movie royally sucked.