Topic: Michael Bay Leaves 'Transformers' Franchise (Read 26679 times)

scarred · « **on:** 18 Jun 2009, 14:40 »

And expresses a desire to make a movie without explosions. Wait, what?

http://movies.ign.com/articles/996/996050p1.html

JD · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Jun 2009, 14:43 »

Not the worst news I've heard today.

rynne · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Jun 2009, 19:53 »

You're two movies too late, Mikey!

Dimmukane · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Jun 2009, 19:58 »

As dumb as this sounds, I kind of want to know what kind of movie he'd make with a budget of less than 15 million.

satsugaikaze · « **Reply #4 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 06:36 »

Quote from: Dimmukane on 18 Jun 2009, 19:58

As dumb as this sounds, I kind of want to know what kind of movie he'd make with a budget of less than 15 million.

A five minute clip of explosions kinda like this?

scarred · « **Reply #5 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:17 »

At least he has a sense of humor about it! I guess... ... eeewww, "Bad Boys."

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #6 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 15:37 »

Quote from: Michael Bay

"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.

God what a jackass. I mean we didn't really need any more proof but man is that guy a jack ass.
Also, what the hell is up with that total non-sequitur? When did level of technical difficult become proportional to quality? A movie is better b/c it was more technically demanding to put together? What world does Bay even live in? Could it be, just maybe, that critics look at his track record and make conclusions about his upcoming films based upon that? Hmm.....

Sox · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 17:25 »

It can be incredibly frustrating when your lifes work is completely dismissed when you have invested a considerable amount of time, effort and money into it. I think he was responding to the dismissal of 'dumb action movies' as a whole, which is something I can understand. A lot of 'art' movies actually flat out suck and are just as derivative as any dumb action movie, yet critics might praise them anyway. At the same time, action movies can be great and while Michael Bay's movies aren't exactly 'art', the attention to detail in the set pieces and the action sequences themselves are done incredibly well, and that is something that deserves recognition whether you appreciate action films as a genre or not.
It's two completely different worlds, and they're not really comparable, but nobody can say that one type of film is superior to the other. As far as action movies go, I think Michael Bay does pretty well. There are certainly dozens of worse movies that get released every year, and there's usually at least one genuinely great sequence in all of his films.

I think he's right when he says that people don't appreciate exactly how hard something like Transformers is to work on. It's also clear as day to see that working on the last two Transformers movies has been incredibly stressful for the guy.
On paper, the Transformers movies sound like a terrible terrible idea. I think they were actually better than they had any right to be, and I believe that Michael Bay did as good a job as anybody could have.
And, y'know? I think he does deserve some recognition for it, whether you like his movies or not.

rynne · « **Reply #8 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 07:42 »

Quote from: Sox on 19 Jun 2009, 17:25

At the same time, action movies can be great and while Michael Bay's movies aren't exactly 'art', the attention to detail in the set pieces and the action sequences themselves are done incredibly well, and that is something that deserves recognition whether you appreciate action films as a genre or not.

I respectfully disagree about this. I went into Transformers knowing it wasn't going to be high art and still was disappointed, particularly by the action pieces. The way those set pieces were cut was too frantic and jumpy. It went beyond livening up the scene to the point that the action was at times unintelligible. I was expecting the story to be lightweight---which it was---but even on a technical level I felt that movie failed.

knives · « **Reply #9 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 14:24 »

Bay's no MvTiernan that's for sure.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #10 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 14:53 »

Don't get me wrong, I love a good action movie. I really do. It's just that Bay's are, while I think fairly impressive technically, basically little more than that: technical wankery. They're not blissfully mindless fun like a good action movie is supposed to be but there's also no substance really to speak of. He's simply a weak filmmaker because he can't engage with artistry and he can't engage with senseless enjoyment. Plus, I stand by what I said about his comment about art films being ass hole-ish. No, sorry Mike, but not just anyone can go make a movie at a French vineyard. Or, I should say, not anyone can do that and have it be good which is surely what he was suggesting. He was saying that his style of film making is more demanding (in a very particular sense of the word, the technical sense, although in many other ways one could say it's less demanding: as a director he seems to have very little concern for the performances of his actors. In others words, he cares about directing set pieces not people and the latter is arguably more challenging to do right) and therefore, somehow, worthy of greater respect. I call bullshit to that. Sure art films can be pretentious and boring and poorly done. No one has ever disputed that. But Bay has essentially belittled the entire art film industry with his comments and that makes him, in my opinion, ignorant, foolish and arrogant. It's ironic too considering that, again, while his films may have had a higher than average time to set up shots or whatever, they simply are not that good on any level. He's really not one to pass judgment.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #11 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 19:09 »

Quote from: Sox on 19 Jun 2009, 17:25

On paper, the Transformers movies sound like a terrible terrible idea.

Of ideas that can be put on paper, "Giant alien robots beat the shit out of each other in highly-detailed, glorious CGI" ranks among the best. The fact that Bay's Transformers failed that basic premise is enough to hold against the guy.

rynne · « **Reply #12 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 07:32 »

More proof that Bay should’ve stopped earlier: Devastator has wrecking-ball testicles.

knives · « **Reply #13 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 12:57 »

And I thought the pee gag was the worst they could get.

rynne · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Jun 2009, 08:25 »

Bay says he’s not leaving the franchise. It was press "spin," all he wanted was a little vacation.

est · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Jun 2009, 18:46 »

Quote from: Ozymandias on 20 Jun 2009, 19:09

Of ideas that can be put on paper, "Giant alien robots beat the shit out of each other in highly-detailed, glorious CGI" ranks among the best. The fact that Bay's Transformers failed that basic premise is enough to hold against the guy.

Not only that, "giant alien robots that beat the shit out of each other and that already have a massively successful history and a huge cult following in the 20-40 year old age bracket that would have the money to take their kids to see this new iteration of the franchise and also to buy their kids the toys"

(And the new toys are fucking horrible, by the way.)

I appreciate a good action film. I can enjoy an action film that pushes believability to the limit. I love Big Trouble in Little China and stuff like Commando, Iron Man, The Bourne Identity, the Indiana Jones trilogy (the fourth movie doesn't exist) and even the first few Die Hard movies. The problem I have with Transformers is that it was basically phoned in. The story is lame. The acting is all lame. The characters are cliched. The plot development is lame. The product placements were unsavoury. The action sequences, which should have been the standout points of the movie, were all as other people have already said, erratic to the point of being almost incomprehensible. Is it too much to ask to have the sequence where Prime & Megatron are fighting (y'know like, the fucking pinnacle of action in the movie) to be something other than a close-up rumble of mechanical parts? The absolute best bit of the first movie was the opening bit in the desert, because I kind of cared about the army characters that were under attack, and you got to see the thing attacking them in a way that was understandable. However, from there it was pretty much all downhill.

The first film was not a good action film, and all the reviews I have read for the second film basically say the same thing: "this is just like the first film, but longer and not as good" so no, I don't believe that it is fair to say that Michael Bay does what he does well at all. Maybe he is able to execute his vision in a precise manner or some shit like that, but when that vision is turgid should the ability to deliver it so well be praised?

Joseph · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 00:12 »

Oh man did Roger Ebert savage the new one.

Tom · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 00:23 »

Oh, did he ever.

scarred · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 00:49 »

Holy shit ahahaha

Alex C · « **Reply #19 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 01:01 »

I find his review to be inaccurate; the one with the aluminum beard is Jetfire.

Alex C · « **Reply #20 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 01:05 »

The bits about the movie sucking are pretty much spot on though.

rynne · « **Reply #21 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 03:41 »

Oh wow. This movie's currently got the lowest Tomatometer score of anything Bay's directed. And since his resume includes Pearl Harbor and Bad Boys II, that's saying a lot.

allison · « **Reply #22 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 07:11 »

Quote from: Toronto Star

Before getting into the booms and boobage of director Michael Bay's latest sensory assault, let's note that the man has no use for 3-D.

He considers it "a gimmick," and with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen he makes a solid argument that eyes can be popped, eardrums shattered and hormones set ablaze without goofy glasses.

This second chapter of the shape-shifting Transformers saga, arriving in theatres at midnight tonight, once again turns boys' toys into movie behemoths. It delivers full-bore "Bayhem" like a brick to the forehead, with some tender love on the side, making this either the summer's biggest blockbuster or history's loudest romance.

The lack of a third dimension might actually be a public service, since watching this movie is akin to lying on the tarmac at Pearson International while a revving Airbus A380 rolls over you.

I laughed pretty hard at this over my toast and juice this morning. I never intended on seeing it, but even the Star, which usually gives terrible movies decent reviews, said it was terrible. Personally I'd rather watch a movie than be attacked by it.

Reed · « **Reply #23 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 07:14 »

I can absolutely see Michael Bay trying to pick up women in some club by offering to give them a little 'Bayhem' in their lives.

Will · « **Reply #24 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 08:03 »

Quote from: Joseph on 24 Jun 2009, 00:12

Oh man did Roger Ebert savage the new one.

And that review is why I love Roger Ebert.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #25 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 14:00 »

The thing I hated the most about the movie was that the first trailer to come on was for New Moon. About 2/3 of the audience groaned or cried out in anger.

Blyss · « **Reply #26 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 16:51 »

Uhm YAY?

Quote from: rynne on 23 Jun 2009, 08:25

Bay says he’s not leaving the franchise. It was press "spin," all he wanted was a little vacation.

Aw Damn it.

Jace · « **Reply #27 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 17:04 »

The best part of the movie for me was seeing the trailer for The Last Airbender.

Reed · « **Reply #28 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 17:18 »

You must expect some kind of disappointment, considering who's directing The Last Airbender!

billiumbean · « **Reply #29 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 21:29 »

It's a little depressing for me to realize that Michael Bay has directed all of those movies. Being seventeen years old, I've only been socially conscious/self aware for maybe three years, and all this time, Michael Bay has existed. He's been behind every movie I've ever considered to be a big EXPLOZE ORGY, and only recently have I realized that.

It's kind of hard to put into words how disappointing it is to realize that an entire (exaggerating) section of pop culture is one man. At least when I thought he was several people I could be open-minded and brush it all off as being a "preference".

allison · « **Reply #30 on:** 30 Jun 2009, 07:58 »

I saw it. It met my expectations, so at least I wasn't disappointed.

I expected it to be terrible.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #31 on:** 30 Jun 2009, 08:08 »

How were Devestator's wrecking-ball testicles?

allison · « **Reply #32 on:** 30 Jun 2009, 08:15 »

Hilarious, according to the rest of the audience.

scarred · « **Reply #33 on:** 01 Jul 2009, 12:51 »

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

David_Dovey · « **Reply #34 on:** 02 Jul 2009, 10:07 »

Hey cool now I don't have to see the gigantic pile of shit.

Johnny C · « **Reply #35 on:** 02 Jul 2009, 13:13 »

I went to a four o'clock showing of this movie. After two hours I checked my watch and it said four-thirty.

Kugai · « **Reply #36 on:** 03 Jul 2009, 22:03 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 02 Jul 2009, 13:13

I went to a four o'clock showing of this movie. After two hours I checked my watch and it said four-thirty.

Temporal anomalies are like that. Time drags when you're not having fun.

Alex C · « **Reply #37 on:** 03 Jul 2009, 22:36 »

All joking aside, I had a similar experience with Jurassic Park 2. Around 7 hours into the movie a number of events transpired that led me to believe that the film was over, except then it turned out the fucking dinosaur had escaped the fucking island. I actually consider this to be one of the most disappointing moments in my life. Ridiculous, I know, but you must understand that I had really, truly thought the film must be over. I had moved beyond hope and into relief only to realize that Jeff Goldblum was going to keep bitching his way through a 4th act. Objectively speaking I've had far worse things happen to me, but none of those truly pulled the rug right out from under me quite like that did.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #38 on:** 03 Jul 2009, 22:43 »

Quote from: scarred on 01 Jul 2009, 12:51

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1

Man, that is spot on. I wouldn't believe half of that it if I hadn't seen the movie myself.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #39 on:** 05 Jul 2009, 14:39 »

At least he's not quite as bad as Uwe Boll. And think, without movies like Bad Boys II, we wouldn't have Hot Fuzz. I'm not saying the guy is any good, but I find it funny that a lot of people claim they go to these movies, that they know are gonna suck, and say they're gonna turn their brains off to watch, and yet come back here and still complain about it anyway. You guys are doing this all wrong. I'm going to go see this movie very soon, and I will possibly even enjoy it. What's my secret? I will not be sober.

Of course it could be argued that I would have equally as fun a time staring at literally anything else for the next couple of hours, but I haven't gone to see a movie in a while and I'm a film major, and thus often feel like I have a quota to get through or else I feel like I'm doing a bad job.

Alex C · « **Reply #40 on:** 05 Jul 2009, 15:37 »

Well, part of the issue is that the film managed to sink beneath some already pretty damn low expectations. I agree that a lot of people likely did go expressly so they could bitch about it but I would classify Transformers 2 as a movie that comes perilously close to being a bit of a buzz kill. It's not even the plot holes that bother me, it's all the jet take offs.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #41 on:** 05 Jul 2009, 19:33 »

I will agree on the jet takeoffs. It seemed like there was a jet takeoff montage every 10 minutes, and they never seemed to do anything except make the movie longer.

Alex C · « **Reply #42 on:** 05 Jul 2009, 20:11 »

To put it bluntly, it failed the piss test. There were entirely too many moments where I thought "Damn, I totally should have gone ahead and got up to go take a piss. I wouldn't have missed anything. The large soda was a poor choice." At the Dark Knight I just shut up and held it.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #43 on:** 05 Jul 2009, 20:24 »

reminds me of the time that I drank a large soda at the very beginning of Return of the King. I came close to running out of the theater before the end, though I managed to hold it all the way until the credits.

KvP · « **Reply #44 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 00:57 »

Michael Bay - entertaining douchebag.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #45 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 03:23 »

In actual Michael Bay douchebaggery, the man who made who made two movies about gigantic robots who sometimes piss on people and/or have gigantic swinging testicles has labeled Megan Fox as "immature" after she said he was more focused on special effects than acting.

ViolentDove · « **Reply #46 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 03:54 »

Even eating a hash cookie could not make this film enjoyable.

Which is a shame, as I quite liked the first one.

Alex C · « **Reply #47 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 11:29 »

Quote from: David_Dovey on 07 Jul 2009, 03:23

Michael Bay douchebaggery

To me the real irony here is that the quote he's referring to is probably the first thing in a while that Megan Fox has said in an interview that I found interesting.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #48 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 18:03 »

Only 23, which means she's probably had a few theatrical gigs and modeling jobs. And probably she studied theater in college, I'd guess. And you'd think she probably did stuff like that in high school, maybe even back to middle school.

All of which is to say that it's irrelevant, she's correct, and Bay's a dick.

Kugai · « **Reply #49 on:** 07 Jul 2009, 22:39 »

It sounds to me as if he tossed his toys.

Grow up ya dick.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Michael Bay Leaves 'Transformers' Franchise (Read 26679 times)