Does anyone really blame Bay for the bad reviews of his flicks? I always thought the direction was superb, but the scripts are usually godawful.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0839146/

Michael Bay has made his last Transformers movie - the director is set to quit the action franchise because he has "had enough" of making big budget blockbusters.

The filmmaker helmed the original 2007 movie and returned this year with its sequel - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

But Bay, who is known for his explosive action sequences, is sick of receiving negative reviews from critics who dislike his movie-making style and is determined to move away from the genre.

He says, "It's easy to go shoot an art movie in a winery in the South of France. But people have no idea how hard it is to create something like Transformers. They (the critics) review me before they've even seen the movie."

And Bay admits that if film bosses give the go ahead for a third Transformers movie, they will have to find a different director.

He adds, "After the three and a half years I've spent making these movies, I feel like I've had enough of the Transformers world.

"I need to do something totally divergent, something without any explosions."

I think he'll be surprised how hard it is to shoot an art film but he definitely gets shit for his films and people don't give him credit for his direction.

What directorial decisions do they fault him for?

I always thought that when people talked shit on Michael Bay movies, they were against the scripts, not the look of them.

I mean, he does deserve some blame for that. But they also have a problem with the hyperactivity of the camera, quick editing, what not. I don't have a problem with that and think he's one of the best action directors out there.

He definitely has his flaws but people go crazy when trying to bash him. He needs a strong producer to work the story while he focuses on the visuals.

The man is an action genius.

Bad Boys 2 changed my whole outlook on blockbusters. The best dumb fun I've had in a theater in YEARS.

Be a real shame if he quit making things go boom.

...and this one he's likely getting a larger chunk of the cut, and it will make more money...

...he doesn't need to make another movie again if he doesn't want to.

And no, he hasn't said that but in reading past comments I've always pegged him as a guy who's going to do his movies and not give a fuck about critics...

Anyway, I personally think he's just blowing off steam here... I'm guessing he faced a lot of pressure bringing this movie in on time and is happy enough to be done with it to give one of those "Never again... until the next time..." declarations... Steve'll throw enough bread at him to do the third Transformers...
________________________________________________________________________
<----- THEY FLYIN' BITCH

________________________________________________________________________
<----- Me and my fairweather friends

>He adds, "After the three and a half years I've spent making
>these movies, I feel like I've had enough of the Transformers
>world.

i can't believe no one else gets tired of people repeating the SAME LAME SHIT about the same people in hollywood, while a rack of perfectly wack ass filmmakers and actors get passes.

mike bay
cage
ANY scientologist
murphy
TP

these people get more than reviewed. they get hated on. extra shit be spilling out of the reviews. i don't need to read all that shit. was it good or was it bad. that's ALL i want.

meanwhile, justin long's one-note ass be getting loved up by these stupid, cunty ass alterna-chicks who write these reviews.

>meanwhile, justin long's one-note ass be getting loved up by
>these stupid, cunty ass alterna-chicks who write these
>reviews.

I was reading a review of "Drag Me to Hell" (which I really enjoyed, largely because Justin Long wasn't really asked to do more than occupy space) where a reviewer* who went out of her way to rave about Justin Long. It caught me completely by surprise that anybody would think to like him. He's not even interesting enough to be considered bad, because that would require considering him at all. If I had to pick "replacement level" for a romantic interest in a movie, Justin Long would be it.

Anyhow. It was off-putting.

*one which I'd describe in more polite terms, but I have a suspicion we're talking about the same perspective here

Didn't Paramount already set a date for T3 anyways?

http://twitter.com/Balisong
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

...it's not the most plausible in ANY for, but it a str8 movie...only parts i wasn't fond of are the sap sessions between affleck and tyler

there's nothing redeeming about that piece of shit

It's way too long (which Michael Bay films AREN'T way too long, though?), edited as if a cokehead on a 3-day binge took over the editing room, and tried... really... hard... to sell the Liv Tyler/Ben Affleck romance, but parts of it are engaging... it's not among my favorite Michael Bay films (which are, once again, Bad Boys and The Rock), but he's certainly done far worse *glares at Pearl Harbor*
________________________________________________________________________
<----- Me and all of my fairweather friends

that title belongs to Stephen Sommers.

Bay just makes mildly annoying, instantly forgettable, 90-minute music videos.

but the fact that he thinks making good "art movies" is easy is quite telling of how deluded he has become.

good art movies are almost 100% script. what bay does...action shit? he's been making lemonade outta ass juice for more well over a decade, so give it a fucking rest.

if bay ever works with streep and geoff rush on some shit that has about 5 set locations and can be wrapped in 8 weeks, you best believe he'll have enough sense to stay the fuck outta the way and just make sure they're in frame and in focus, because that's all the fuck he gotta do.

what, you think fucking todd field and mike gondry really puts their "stamp" on a great fucking script? fuck outta here. they couldn't do what bay does, but i bet bay can shut the fuck up and let a great script and great acting carry him home.

>good art movies are almost 100% script. what bay
>does...action shit? he's been making lemonade outta ass juice
>for more well over a decade, so give it a fucking rest.

Was Requiem for a Dream all script? Before Night Falls? Magnolia? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? Being John Malkovich? Donnie Darko? and many others?

>if bay ever works with streep and geoff rush on some shit that
>has about 5 set locations and can be wrapped in 8 weeks, you
>best believe he'll have enough sense to stay the fuck outta
>the way and just make sure they're in frame and in focus,
>because that's all the fuck he gotta do.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. It's harder to make 2 ppl talking in a long scene interesting than a car chase. And the fact remains whenever the action stops and it's 2 ppl talking in any of Bay's films it's horrible.

>what, you think fucking todd field and mike gondry really puts
>their "stamp" on a great fucking script? fuck outta here. they
>couldn't do what bay does, but i bet bay can shut the fuck up
>and let a great script and great acting carry him home.
Really? Wasn't that what The Island was suppose to do? Wasn't that his biggest failure to date? Not even Scarlett naked could bring ppl to the theaters.

>Was Requiem for a Dream all script? Before Night Falls?
>Magnolia? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? Being John
>Malkovich? Donnie Darko? and many others?

what the fuck did they add that wasn't in the script? you read any of those scripts? 1.screenwriter 2. cinematographer 3. director...read the scripts.

>>if bay ever works with streep and geoff rush on some shit
>that
>>has about 5 set locations and can be wrapped in 8 weeks, you
>>best believe he'll have enough sense to stay the fuck outta
>>the way and just make sure they're in frame and in focus,
>>because that's all the fuck he gotta do.

>Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

no, like most know-nothings here...YOU DON'T.

It's
>harder to make 2 ppl talking in a long scene interesting than
>a car chase.

yeah, that's great scripts are RARE. SHUT UP.

>>and let a great script and great acting carry him home.
>Really? Wasn't that what The Island was suppose to do? Wasn't
>that his biggest failure to date? Not even Scarlett naked
>could bring ppl to the theaters.

that's why I will never watch a frame of that film.

http://twitter.com/Balisong
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

>good art movies are almost 100% script. what bay
>does...action shit? he's been making lemonade outta ass juice
>for more well over a decade, so give it a fucking rest.

you fuckin moron, a goddamn team of NON-astronauts sent to blow up a fuckin meteor? WHAT?!?!?!? how's that his fault?!?!?!? there's not an editor nor director in the world that's gonna make that story GOOD!!!!

but, do you really think spielberg did something different with war of the worlds? you think he did some with those pages that bay COULDN'T HAVE?

fuck outta here.

It's the fact that he makes the distinction between "art movies" and what he does.

Whether it is or isn't art doesn't matter. It's the fact that he doesn't see the art in what he is doing. Which to me implies that he is emotionally and personally disconnected from his work. Which in turn to me implies he shouldn't give a shit what the critics say. No one is putting a gun to his head and forcing him to take on these projects.

don't look for deeper meaning in what he said, when he said exactly what he meant. he meant dialouge heavy, extended scene drivel, wherein a-list actors can go head to head and try to outOSCAR each other. that's what the fuck he meant.

there's art in what he does and he knows it, but it's the kind no one appreciates after their two hours are up. in fact, most of us go see them shits and make fun of the implausibility of it all.

i would imagine that making 50 mil front/back per popcorn film and STILL being looked down upon by his less talented peers and asshole reviewers would piss off ANYONE. no one wants to hear that shit when they're working their fucking ass off. they not good enough BECAUSE they keep winning? fuck kinda bullshit is that?

it's why kobe wanted to win WITHOUT shaq.
it's why beyonce left DC.

>don't look for deeper meaning in what he said, when he said
>exactly what he meant. he meant dialouge heavy, extended scene
>drivel, wherein a-list actors can go head to head and try to
>outOSCAR each other. that's what the fuck he meant.

But critics shit on these types of movies all the time too. And with those its even worse, because there's no fun stuff to fall back on. Even in a 1-star Michael Bay movie review, someone's bound to give props for action and effects.

>good art movies are almost 100% script. what bay
>does...action shit? he's been making lemonade outta ass juice
>for more well over a decade, so give it a fucking rest.
>

>but the fact that he thinks making good "art movies" is easy
>is quite telling of how deluded he has become.

he has made some gigantic pieces of shit. wow. i didn't know all those movies were him!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0814085/

Not me, personally. I think he's made some really awful movies. But it's a bad idea, no matter who you are or what you're doing, to let the critics get to you--especially when it sounds like you're making decisions based on how you think they'll respond. You'll just end up being hated by your former fans AND still made fun of by the critics.

shit ain't even original

You're not a bright guy.

I agree that what he does is extremely difficult, and he wouldn't have had this much success if he wasn't any good at it. But it's bizarre to me that he would even give the critics this much consideration.

And lest we forget: Roger Ebert gave The Rock 3 and a half damn stars! So it's not like critics are writing him off simply because of the genre he works in. If he wants to make an "art movie" then fine, have fun at the winery, but if all he really wants to do is silence the critics, it might just be a simple matter of making something good that can hold up to a little scrutiny.

should NOT fucking review certain films.

Ideally they should be able to approach a movie free of bias or agenda and judge it on its own terms. Every single premise might not appeal to them, but the job isn't really about watching movies you know you're going to like.

ideally, i'd think someone with pubes would fucking know better. most critics know what the fuck they're gonna write before the see anything. they just look for reasons to justify it.

Straight from the man himself...

"Hah, love press how they spin. Never said it - just wanted a vacation is more to the point. And no I don't read the good or the bad reviews."

we're gonna have to wait about 10 years for the reboot

People go to movies to be entertained/stimulated.

Some don't.

They're more than welcome to stay away from the movie.

MF's can go rent Snow Cake lol

Transformers is 80's pop garbage, and Bay managed to not only make it relevant POST 1987...but 85% of the "haters" are probably in line right now...just...angry.

He has 30-somethings...in line...right now...to watch TRANSFORMERS.

Bay won.

Reviewers actually are really wasting their energy in some of these respects.

As far as the troupes that keep popping up in his films, no matter who's in charge of the screenplay, etc. Well, yeah. Some of that criticism is valid.

But The Doc doesn't usually agree with the idea of automatic hate toward a director based on his track record, without even watching the film in question.

The Doc's criticism of Transformers, for example, has little to do with Bay and his directorial style per se, as it does the script, focal points of the film and other minutia.

For what Bay brings to the table (his action scene direction), The Doc has little complaints. As long as the criticism of Bay is confined to what he actually does as director, and not auto-hate, all is good.

However, equally weak is praising a director whose glaring short-comings as a filmmaker manage to be obscured by the amount of money those films bring in. It's kind of like in music, praising an obvlously weak-ass/flash-in-the-pan artist because they sell tons of records.

Michael Bay didn't resurrect Transformers from the dead, box-office numbers be damned. He was lucky he hit when/how he did (time of movie release, climate of sensitivity to '80s pop culture, stars in film relative to their popularity). Any ol' hack would have gotten that franchise off the ground in this era, ITDO. He may be fortunate enough to strike gold twice. But a third time? Eh... The Doc doesn't know if the franchise will still be marketable in 2012 or whenever the next one hits. If The Doc's wrong, he'll log in to take his L.

The Doc's not mad @ Bay for this response. ITDO, anyone who dared to take on the Transformers franchise was going to take that kind of heat. The fact that it was Bay just gave critics an easier target.

Imagine if that were say, Brett Ratner, or (LOL) Tyler Perry doing that franchise.