|
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.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
