The Big Picture: Leave Michael Bay Alone

[ZexionSephiroth]

In my defense... I haven't been to the cinema in a long time... I stopped going to the cinema and buying DVDs and generally giving a damn about Hollywood movies a LONG time ago... Relative to my age that is.

Though that may have more to do with the seeming general apathy of most characters in Hollywood and the complete devaluation of emotion itself. Like... Nobody in Hollywood films seems to be having fun, not do they really seem to care at all really.

Meanwhile... What I myself watch generally tends towards things where the power of the soul itself and the emotions that make it up are generally the very thing that makes the heroes able to fight at all.

... Actually, now that I think about it... I think the problem with Hollywood films for me might actually be that they're too slow and maybe not even over the top enough, like really, they might not be going far enough. I mean, sure Hollywood has explosions and car crashes... But they never have 1000 punch salvos or sword swings that split the earth itself.

...

Basically, the Hollywood industry is too tied down to "realism" by trying to make stuff where things make sense and failing.

Just once I'd like to see Hollywood try to make a movie where the power of friendship is the reason they can defeat the enemy. Like, literally, not in some poetic sense but in the sense that having friends and the emotions one has for them awakens power within the protagonist that allows them to freaking just burn everything that's a problem with the flame from their heart.

For it is the power of strong sentiment that will save us from all the ills of the world. Especially Hope, Love, Joy, and whatever emotions comprise exhilaration, excitement, and enthusiasm.

...

Maybe I should stick to magical girl anime.

 

[marioandsonic]

I see what you're saying, Bob, and I do agree to an extent.

Doesn't change my opinion that his Transformers movies are godawful, though.

 

[red255]

French fries analogy, America has diabetes, because America can't help himself and has an eating disorder.

is it really blameless to bring America French Fries? McDonalds French Fries no less. But I won't get into a food arguement over Michael Bay.

Bay's problem is he did a 3 hour transformer movie which is promotionalized by an image of Optimus Prime a Giant robot man god using a flaming broadsword atop a fire breathing T-rex which is tacked on at the tail end of a movie about evil burecrats.

its basically throwing stuff up there to make a gif or trailer short, or Youtube video teaser of a nearly naked girl and then being about doing your god damn taxes.

 

[dubious_wolf]

I paid to see the third one because a friend I hadn't seen in a while was and begged me to join.
I left the theater at some point during the movie.
I also stopped hanging out with the guy.

I think it's the audience too. It's the boring uninspired Americans that shill out crap like that.

 

[dubious_wolf]

Great Episode Bob.

I don't hate Bay, but he does confuse the hell out of me. I don't understand how someone who can make something as gut-wrenchingly awful as Transformers (Four times!) can make something as fantastic as Pain and Gain. The former is racist, sexist, jingoistic garbage. The latter is a hilarious condemnation of that shit and the stupid people that like it. The characters in Pain and Gain are clearly portrayed as bad people, and they're also the people who would be first in line for a movie like Transformers. If he knows this stuff is bad and bad for you, why does he keep making it? Why doesn't he use Transformers to do something more? Or at the very least not propagate the views he's previously criticized.

I just don't get it.

*in my best attempt at a west coast surfer bro*
maybe he's just like, you know a prisoner of the man, dude.

ahem.
I think he might be just making movies for a pay check as opposed to really using it as a creative outlet, a lot of the other directors bob mentions were very much artists and creatives which is why they are so beloved. Maybe the one or two hits were left up to statistical probability and really good writing support?

 

[walrusaurus]

I would offer up a counterexample to Bob's claim that the bulk of American viewers would only turn out for slop - but not that the bulk of American movie-goers are in fact turning out for slop.

Let me explain.

A statement about what movie-goers are doing, namely, filling the theaters up for the big, dumb robot movie and ignoring better cinema is not the same as a statement about what they would do under different conditions.

On the small screen, we saw the dumbing-down during the early 2000's of television shows with the reality TV craze, but that subsided as networks managed to sell the general public on more complex serials with long arcs, multi-season plots, and deep characters. What started with Lost and 24 ended up with Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones becaming massive institutions that dwarf most of the contemporary shows on television. The networks sold the populace on the idea of these shows while the critics of the early 2000's were crying about the dumbing down of the TV-viewing population.

Right now, a movie viewer doesn't generally go to the movies expecting to see something that's part of a larger world or longer story (Marvel excepted - and notice how they are hitting it out of the park?) They go expecting two hours of abnegation. They go to turn off for a couple of hours. The small screen sold the viewers on investing in a series, expecting it to be smart, expecting to have to invest in it, and so on. One viewers got the idea that TV would expect that of them, the viewers still turned on and tuned in.

Hollywood for the most part still sells abnegation (exceptions are many but still in a minority). The movies that stick with the viewers are those that offer more - we can all remember Frozen, but does anyone still care about or even remember clearly what happened in the recent Jack Ryan movie? But for the most part, movie viewers go in with the mindset of just zoning out for two hours. And that's fine. Plenty of television is just a way to zone out. However, the small screen has shown us clearly that the public is willing to put a bit of work in when they believe the medium requires it.

The thing is that Television is inherently better suited to that kind of in depth character driven drama. A good portion of your average 2-hour movie has to be devoted to exposition and plot mechanics, leaving only maybe an hour or so to completely focus on character building/development. Yes, a good film weaves its character development into its expository scenes, but even then they have a fraction of the time a TV series has. The average tv season is 20-24 episodes, they have literally 10x the space to have intimate character moments that film simply cannot afford.

I think the decline of 'serious cinema' viewership goes hand in hand with the rise in serialized television. With how expensive movie tickets are these days i'm not going to a theater to see a film unless its something that i can only experience there. Which invariably means big showpiece movies with lots of CGI and explosions, because thats something i can't experience the same way on my computer monster at home. Therese no reason for me to pay 13 dollars to go see Lincoln when i can spend $1 and get the exact same experience when it comes out on redbox.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Well said, Bob. I don't hate Michael Bay movies (mainly because I don't go out of my way to watch them), though I can see why so many people dislike them... and yet more people are going to the theaters to see them. Maybe he shouldn't keep pandering to the masses, but people also shouldn't overlook good movies for adolescent pandering.

(And okay, I admit I liked the first Transformers movie, but the sequels are rather lackluster.)

 

[Darth_Payn]

That was very mature of Bob to recognize how far he came as a film critic. I love it when he takes pot-shots at other critics for being too harshly critical, as if they have an agenda of their own for writing their opinions in the way they do. Critics aren't just criticizing the movie/video game/novel/[insert creative work here] itself, but they people who made it and the perceived "peons" who buy it.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I liked Pain & Gain even if one of my favorite film critics called it worst of last year. I have never really shrugged off the director out right but you can hardly blame anyone for being... cautious?

Then again, one could argue Bay could try and NOT catering to the lowest common denominator IE "with great power comes great responsibility" etc.

 

[Twinmill5000]

Great Episode Bob.

I don't hate Bay, but he does confuse the hell out of me. I don't understand how someone who can make something as gut-wrenchingly awful as Transformers (Four times!) can make something as fantastic as Pain and Gain. The former is racist, sexist, jingoistic garbage. The latter is a hilarious condemnation of that shit and the stupid people that like it. The characters in Pain and Gain are clearly portrayed as bad people, and they're also the people who would be first in line for a movie like Transformers. If he knows this stuff is bad and bad for you, why does he keep making it? Why doesn't he use Transformers to do something more? Or at the very least not propagate the views he's previously criticized.

I just don't get it.

I think I can explain it.

Sometimes, you just want to draw dicks all over the place, because, even though you're a really good artist, and you've proven it with pieces that pander to the common-critical audience, giving you your fame, you just sort of want to draw dicks. You know people will buy your drawings of dicks, and even if they don't, you have too much money to care, and since you don't care, and want to draw dicks, you end up drawing dicks.

That's the Michael Bay analogy in a nutshell. He wants to draw dicks. Yep.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

I mostly agree with this. Though I will say that I don't think the audience's taste is entirely to blame for liking his movies.

Usually when a director tries to make something more awesome than it is, they resort to grating, low camera angles, slomotion, etc.... instead of letting the characters or story earn the title of awesome on their own merit.

Orgins: Wolverine was guilty of this (thought admittedly, the story sucked). It treated everyone as being awesome without actually proving they were.

Michael Bay attempts makes everything look awesome with such confidence and flare that either you start believing it, or it seems like a parody of action movies in general.

The Rock had that vibe for me. It was impossibly stupid, but still made you feel like the stuff that happened was awesome.

That's my attempt at theatrical deconstruction at least...

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

That is an excellent point. The writers of Pain and Gain also wrote Captain America 2 and Thor 2. The writers of Transformers 2 wrote Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Star Trek Into Darkness.

So yeah, the writer quality definitely had something to do with it.

Yeah, seriously. People always seem to forget that the directors have nothing to do with the writing (unless they're ALSO the writer).

If you want a well written movie, pay attention to who wrote the script, not just who directed it.

OT: Damn Bob, that was a fantastic ending. I may have to quote you.

 

[Samsont]

Good on you Bob, I'm impressed at the honesty here, and the fact that you didn't tone it down just to keep things more acceptable and "safe" for your job. I'd love seeing more stuff like this from you.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

People go to loud, stupid movies for the same reason people stick M-80's in water bottles: the simple act of exploding things stimulates the pleasure center like a courtesan made of opium.

We, the general public, go to movies like these to relax. We have lives, and families, and stupid, stupid jobs where we deal with shitheel customers on a regular basis. A nice, uncomplicated film about robots punching each other in the face is appealing. Sure you get films that have crossover appeal, ones that houghty-toughty film buffs and average Joe both enjoy like Inception or The Dark Knight Saga.

I think Bay realizes what he is and exploits that t its' fullest potential. He knows that he makes stupid, but fun to watch movies, and he knows that he's the studio's money making machine. So he makes what he thinks would be cool to watch, and gets payed a mint for it.

I don't buy that these Transformers movies are "uncomplicated". The plots are needlessly convoluted, just watch Bob's review of Age Of Extinction. They're ridiculously long. I don't see how these movies are conducive to the general public.

What's uncomplicated action movies that I happen to like?

The Raid

Dredd

And yet Age of Extinction has an A- Cinemascore. I think we need to try to understand why that is. Apparently, the marketing push was incredible with $175 million only used for corporate brand partners like GM Chevrolet and Oreo Cookies, Big Red soda, Valero gas stations and Western Star trucks: http://nikkifinke.com/transformers-age-extinction-starts-weekend-worldwide/

Point for you then. Or maybe people go just for the spectacle. These movies are basically their own Universal Studio's rides. They're loud, they're stupid, and they're fun.

Remember fun? I remember fun. I remember that period at around age 13-14 where movies like these were good, because they got you hyped up and shit exploded in them. I didn't think about plot or characters; my criterion for a satisfying movie was a simple checklist.

Does shit blow up real good?
[X]Yes []No
Did you have fun watching it?
[X]Yes []No

Plus, I've always liked Bay's aesthetic; something about it just screams "Summer Blockbuster" and makes it fun to look at.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

ak93]I mostly agree with this. Though I will say that I don't think the audience's taste is entirely to blame for liking his movies.

Usually when a director tries to make something more awesome than it is, they resort to grating, low camera angles, slomotion, etc.... instead of letting the characters or story earn the title of awesome on their own merit.

Orgins: Wolverine was guilty of this (thought admittedly, the story sucked). It treated everyone as being awesome without actually proving they were.

Michael Bay attempts makes everything look awesome with such confidence and flare that either you start believing it, or it seems like a parody of action movies in general.

The Rock had that vibe for me. It was impossibly stupid, but still made you feel like the stuff that happened was awesome.

That's my attempt at theatrical deconstruction at least...

Ah, this is just the breakdown I was looking for.

That's Bay's secret; He just tries so goddamned hard to make everything cool, that pure saturation makes it sink in. And speaking of parody, the man's not above self depreciation, just look at those commercials where he explodes his grill and his pool in the name of making things awesome. Or that one commercial where he just puts throws out helicopters at sunset.

 

[John McMinn]

This is interesting. It made me think as I've butchered Michael Bay a few times. That being said. If TMNT is as bad as I fear it to be, then I'm gonna go right back to Bay bashing.

 

[Cerity]

We keep bashing him specifically because we know he can do better because of movies like Bad Boys II and The Rock, but he keeps pandering to the idiot masses.

agreed, but i think that was the point movie Bob was making. I will admit Michael Bay films are guilty pleasures of even my own. Punish as you see fit. I'm sorry movie Bob.

 

[schiz0phren1c]

BOB! YOU ARE! MY NUMBER ONE! GUUUUUUUUUUUUUY!

seriously a Mic drop would not have been out of place at the end of that.

Totally agree(both with Bob saying the unsayable and with Arbiter about the Mic Drop,I've done it myself and its both satisfying as hell,and really underscores your point

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Well. After the 'Age of Extinction' review I actually messaged Bob with a suggestion that he should do a Big Picture episode on Michael Bay, to try and dispel the notion that he hates the man and is biased against him. I don't know whether he took my suggestion or whether he was planning to do this already (probably the latter since this wasn't quite what I was suggesting) but it's still fascinating to see this.

Have to give Bob ultimate kudos for going back and admitting that he was unprofessional in his 'Revenge of the Fallen' review and he's now embarassed by it and feels the need to apologise to Michael Bay for it. Say what you like about Bob, you can't call him one-eyed, stubborn or a hypocrite who refuses to admit when he's wrong.

 

[GratchDDO]

I don't know that I'd single out Michael Bay as the issue. I'd moreso put the problem with the crud the screenwriter is cranking out that doesn't appease as either an independent movie or as an extended object of the childhood cartoon.

Movie's from Marvel and the recent LEGO movie prove you can make a movie both for the masses that has something more than Hollywood checkboxes strung together. It's a shame with all the great writers out there we get stuck with Transformers and Amazing Spiderman scripts.