|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 7, 2009 21:40:53 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. Ive seen some of his films- well produced, but I would say that's due to a big budget than anything to do with Bay.
Except for "The Rock", which I thought mostly fantastic, everything else that's come on cable by him has been noisy and muddled. He comes across great concepts, then drives them into the ground shortly after the first couple of minutes.
He can do a mean trailer though. I love the trailer to Pearl Harbor. I have no problem with him directing trailers, though.
Superman, though? You've got to be kidding, with all due respect.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Jul 7, 2009 22:04:37 GMT -5
Can we get Akiva Goldsman to write it?
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 7, 2009 22:07:56 GMT -5
I saw the first Transformers and didn't find it funny or truly exciting. AT ALL. It was dumb and forgetable entertainment, for me at least.
So yeah, I voted heck NOOOOOO TO BAY!
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 7, 2009 22:30:39 GMT -5
Bay's films are fun. They're dumb as heck many times, but they're fun, escapist action fare.
The Rock is his best film.
Armageddon, which I remember going into with trepidation, was fun (and dumb). I didn't see the Island. Transfomers, I know many here will disagree, was entertaining. Bad Boys 1 and 2 were also entertaining in a leave your brain at the door kinda way, but what action film usually isn't a leave your brain at the door kinda film?
Like I said, it's trendy to bash Bay. I used to do it myself. But I got over myself. They're fun, entertaining, and sometimes cringeworthy. The Rock is like that too. He also usually has the benefit of a kickass cast.
Movies are like food. There's filet mignon and a Big Mac. And I can enjoy both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jul 7, 2009 23:01:36 GMT -5
Movies are like food. There's filet mignon and a Big Mac. And I can enjoy both. Haha, great analogy. Yeah, I love Taco Bell to death. I know the food is really bad, but it tastes so damn good. Bay's movies are like that. A decade ago, someone thought Michael Bay's movies were worthy of the Criterion Collection treatment with the rationale that in time, his movies will stand apart from others. Well, for better or worse, that's pretty much true. You just have to know what you're getting into in order to enjoy it. IMO, The Rock is an action masterpiece. The rest are dumb fun of differing degrees. |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Jul 7, 2009 23:14:17 GMT -5
Taco Bell always gives me the runs. Always.
I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jul 7, 2009 23:16:16 GMT -5
OK, bad example. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 7, 2009 23:17:38 GMT -5
Movies are like food. There's filet mignon and a Big Mac. And I can enjoy both. Sure, me too, to a certain degree. And Bay movies are definitely Big Mac. A Superman movie deserves a filet mignon type of meal. The character's status deserves it. Bay doesn't have an idea of how to cool such type of meal, imo. |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Jul 7, 2009 23:18:13 GMT -5
;D
I don't know why it happens. But it never fails. NEVER.
Jack in the Crack is always good.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 7, 2009 23:20:38 GMT -5
Movies are like food. There's filet mignon and a Big Mac. And I can enjoy both. Haha, great analogy. Yeah, I love Taco Bell to death. I know the food is really bad, but it tastes so damn good. Bay's movies are like that. A decade ago, someone thought Michael Bay's movies were worthy of the Criterion Collection treatment with the rationale that in time, his movies will stand apart from others. Well, for better or worse, that's pretty much true. You just have to know what you're getting into in order to enjoy it. IMO, The Rock is an action masterpiece. The rest are dumb fun of differing degrees. Yep. As a matter of fact, I have the Criterion Collection edition of The Rock. Mainly because it was Sean Connery's last great action role...unless you count League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And Connery is my favorite actor. I don't care what the haters say. His films do stand out, even his detractors can't deny that, and I'll bet you he'd make the Superman movie everyone else is scared to make: action packed, with a supervillain. Maybe we can move beyond all this origin bullshit that Superman can't move beyond. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 8, 2009 0:38:54 GMT -5
I think the only thing that what makes Bay movies stand apart from a lot of the brainless action pictures (Which I don't have a problem with--- it's just that Bay can't direct action very well imo- James Cameron, John Woo (at least he used to), Stephen Norrington kick Bay's butt just on choreographing action alone, forget about story)..... is money on the production.
Bay imo fails at comedy, action, and drama. But he has nice cinematography and his pictures tend to have gigantic budgets. (Again, "The Rock" being a great exception to his list of movies as the informal last 007 film by Connery)
It's cool if we don't see eye to eye on Bay, but I just wish that the choices weren't so bottom of the barrel. If we only are looking at action, and nothing else, you could still do far better than Bay imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 8, 2009 7:51:30 GMT -5
See, I disagree. For whatever faults his movies may have, his movies undeniably have a fast pace to them. That means he's doing something right.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 8, 2009 9:29:28 GMT -5
I also disagree on that. Tranformers felt painfully slow to me, in spite of fast camera moves and editing.
I do love movies that also provide great action sequences, so don't get me wrong. I just think Bay is far far from even being a good action director, compared to so many other directors. (Again, just talking about action). But then again, this is all subjective.
If you're in favor of Bay for Superman mainly for action, there are better choices out there, too.... I'd opt for them first.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Jul 8, 2009 10:05:43 GMT -5
A movie being fast pace doesnt make it good.
Star Trek is fast paced & it's awesome.
Bay's movies are fast paced & are always an insult to my intelligence. They are shit, to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 8, 2009 10:13:18 GMT -5
I also disagree on that. Tranformers felt painfully slow to me, in spite of fast camera moves and editing. I do love movies that also provide great action sequences, so don't get me wrong. I just think Bay is far far from even being a good action director, compared to so many other directors. (Again, just talking about action). But then again, this is all subjective. If you're in favor of Bay for Superman mainly for action, there are better choices out there, too.... I'd opt for them first. Oh, I'm not saying Bay is my first choice for directing a Superman movie. Not at all. What I am saying is that if he did direct one, I don't think it would be as bad as people say. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Michael Bay directed a new Superman movie under the pen name of Steven Spielberg, people wouldn't come out of the movie as hateful. See, I believe a lot of fanboys are like part of a gang, and Michael Bay is that little old lady with a satchel of 100 dollar bills that gang members love to pick on. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Jul 8, 2009 10:33:15 GMT -5
No Michael Bay is someone who is selfish to the point that he doesn't care if he is respectful to a pre-determined look & mythos.
And then when people ask him why he changed things that didn't need to be fucked with, he says things like "Because I wanted to" with enough belligerence to make me wanna spit in his face.
Bay is a hack. He's like some video game playing fanboy who thinks that 'splosions are all ya need to make the world go round.
He's wrong & he's a hack. To me.
I used to think that he should be banned from directing & having any creative input on any movie & that he should be allowed to supervise effects sequences on big movies.
But even that wont work anymore since his action scenes are so chaotic that you cant even tell what the fuck is happening on screen.
They look like dust & gears exploded & the camera is spinning around really fastly.
Yuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 8, 2009 12:36:22 GMT -5
Eh, I disagree.
I haven't been a hardcore Transformers fan since the mid 1980s, but I don't remember him changing all that much in the movie.
Usually, big screen adaptations play around the look of the characters anyway.
I remember this HUGE uproar over the tiny "S" on Superman's chest in SR. Or that his cape looked more like a wine color.
The X-Men wore black leather over yellow spandex.
Bay is no Spielberg, but his movies are entertaining.
EDIT: I should mention that I haven't seen Transformers 2 or The Island. But I have seen The Rock, Bad Boys 1 and 2, Armageddon, Transformers 1 and Pearl Harbor (his worst film IMO).
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 8, 2009 15:55:08 GMT -5
I think that's the bottom line. I can forgive a director who has any type of eccentricities or says anything he wants, so long as I enjoy the final product.
But.... since I DON'T find them entertaining, Bay's arrogance in interviews just make him and his films a bit easier to attack.
|
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Jul 8, 2009 16:02:18 GMT -5
In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Michael Bay directed a new Superman movie under the pen name of Steven Spielberg, people wouldn't come out of the movie as hateful. I think he did that once. It was on a film called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jul 8, 2009 17:05:38 GMT -5
Nah. Transformers 2 was better than Indy 4.  |
|
|
|
Post by KaptainKrypton on Jul 10, 2009 1:00:12 GMT -5
Oh, yes. I definitely think that we need Superman to be featured in another one of Michael Bay's shiny and loud, two-hour movie trailers with as much depth as the shallow end of the kiddie pool. Yeah. Oh, and let's finish it with another awesome Linkin Park song just for kicks. That'll shine 'er up real nice. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 10, 2009 1:53:55 GMT -5
At this point, all I care about is a movie that will get people to care about Superman in a big way.
Do you think back in 1980, people got all wound up about a "S" and flying wigs? Bullshit, it was an action-packed, romance filled adventure with a sense of humor.
And us? Ha! We were in full blown Superman nirvana.
Ok, ok, now some of us are older and have issues with SII, but you get the point.
But I digress...
I just want people to get excited about a Superman movie. If it has to be Michael Bay to deliver it, so be it.
I just didn't like all the "Eh's" I had to listen to after SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Jul 10, 2009 7:15:02 GMT -5
I just want people to get excited about a Superman movie. If it has to be Michael Bay to deliver it, so be it.  I've only ever heard that from a few naysayers on here & from the Smallville army online. Everyone I know in real life loved it. Theres alot of retro-engineered bad press for this movie that goes on online. It made alot of money & it got mostly great reviews. |
|
|
|
Post by KaptainKrypton on Jul 11, 2009 2:52:46 GMT -5
I've only ever heard that from a few naysayers on here & from the Smallville army online. Everyone I know in real life loved it. Theres alot of retro-engineered bad press for this movie that goes on online. It made alot of money & it got mostly great reviews. Exactly. The majority of those who pissed and moaned about it haven't moved on and are still around most places. That's why I refused to post at Superhero Hype until yesterday for the first time in I can't even remember. Even when faced with the review poll on that very same site that showed SR whipping ass with good scores for the most part (equivalent to the metacritic and RT scores) those who hated it are still bitter and have to have something to do, I guess. The movie didn't set the world on fire. I get that part of their gripe. However, the film was basically a restoration project to fish a completely dead franchise out of the toilet Cannon left it in. But because Ebert and several platoons of Welling-ites weren't pleased (even though pretty much everyone else was), you'd have sworn Singer made Cutthroat Island. The movie deserves a sequel big time. I hope it gets one because it'd be anything better than a hollow Michael-Bay-popcorn-shit-shingle. Transformers can have eight sequels and make a trillion dollars for all I care. I don't want that guy anywhere near Blue. He hopefully can find another franchise to go ruin. I also don't want his writing team anywhere near Superman. They are the same guys who brought us Godzilla. Uggh. |
|
downwithrouth
New Member
Geekdom really needs to shut up
Posts: 167
|
Post by downwithrouth on Jul 11, 2009 16:41:10 GMT -5
What the franchise needs is someone who is outside the studio box, who can get a good story alive on the screen and who dares to be different. Someone like Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton, but younger. Tim Burton wanted a "darker, more murderous" Superman who didn't fly, used gadgets, had a knife emblem, wore a variety of freakish outfits, and fought a sluglike creature called "Lexiac" (Luthor and Brainiac merge into a single being at the end of his version). According to the few concept artists on the film who WEREN'T in his pockets (Kerry Gammill and Pete Von Scholly), his instructions to them were to avoid the comics wherever possible. Further, he makes no secret of disliking comics in the first place. If that's the kind of director you want to see do Superman, then you might as well call back Abrams or McG or even Burton himself and tell them all is forgiven. Because that's exactly what you'd get. |
|
