The Big Picture: Leave Michael Bay Alone

[Burnouts3s3]

This is very interesting. I've always wondered if the state of pop culture, as it is today, is to blame on the artist or the audience.

I've always been more open-minded to the idea that the audience only consumes what's in front of them and if they placed something of higher quality in front of them, they would take it... but, we've seen countless times at the box office that's not always true.

What I will argue is that one can't happen without the other: you can't serve slop if there isn't an audience for it, and the audience can't eat slop if isn't there.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah the general public can be a good and bad thing depending which side you're on when it come to the media.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The Transformers movies where way better than DragonBall: Evolution so he's alright by me.

 

[Bigwig]

Really there is problem. If the average moviegoer likes Transformers who am I to take it away from them? Its existence isn't affecting me in any way.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

True dat!
So... there isn't really a problem; Bay makes movies people like, they watch it and have fun.
Railing against that is just hating for hates sake.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I've been saying this for quite some time in regards to both film and games.

Case-n-point, I wrote a thing a while back saying how the Nintendo is basically doing EVERYTHING gamers demand from their game companies for their gaming experience: free online service, aesthetics over graphical fidelity, 1080p, variety of options of controllers so you can play how you want (similar to PC), backwards compatibility and access to a large library of old school favorites that many are happy to go back to for fun and nostalgia, listening to what consumers want, showing gameplay when revealing a game, more female characters in their games, affordable console, etc. Yet the WiiU doesn't sell and people still treat Nintendo like garbage even though they're embracing the PS4 and Xbone along with Ubisoft and EA who are constantly going against all the above shit and treating customers like crap. (This has changed a little bit recently, but not much).

And people wonder why customers are treated like crap in gaming or in cinema. Because you people keep taking it instead of going for better options. Why, I'll never fully understand, but it happens. And I agree with Bob on this one. creators like Michael Bay or the guys at Ubisoft aren't necessarily the problem. Sure, they don't actively step in to change that, but that's because they have to make a living. And if making a living means selling b-level slop to large audiences because that's the thing that sells best, I guess we'll be stuck with b-level slop for a while. This doesn't mean we can't criticize the creators for making slop, but I do think this is something we should keep in mind when point it out so we can at least be civil about it.

 

[Rabidkitten]

My issue with Micheal Bay is his heavy handedness. He makes these goofy movies and then over intensifies his terrible scripts with slow motion shots of supposed emotional moments. The whole thing falls flat, and it hurts to watch. Examples of this are the scene when Bruce Willis' life flashes before his eyes when he's about to die Armageddon. When the Navi Seal teams are shooting each other in the Rock, and Ed Harrison realizes the extent of what he's done. It so slow and over dramatic, and ham fisted. That's my issue, I cannot even watch the Ham Fisted crap.

 

[thedoclc]

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.

 

[Mr Fixit]

I really enjoyed The Rock, but Armageddon was too long. Never seen Bad Boys 2 or Pain & Gain. I grew up with the TMNT cartoon & the original movies & I gotta say the new TMNT actually looks like it might be "gasp" fun to watch, which is really all I ask for in a movie sometimes.

The only thing I ever really hated about the Transformers movies was Shia LaBouf. He's just so damn annoying in every movie. The fights in the first one were a bit of a clusterfuck, but it wasn't really a bad movie. The second was largely forgettable, but a fun watch that I've seen several times on tv. The best thing in it was Devastator. The third was an overwhelming "meh" to me & that's about all I can say about it. I've not seen the fourth one yet, but I'll catch it eventually, I got a long weekend coming up maybe I'll actually go see this one in theaters.

And we wouldn't have Baysplosions without him & I like it when things go boom. Call me one of the mindless masses if you must, I'm ok with it, though I've never paid to see one of his movies.

 

[theApoc]

Very insightful, it is a nice change of pace.

 

[badmunky64]

He's just fun to hate

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The only thing I have left to add to this is that my personal most despised Michael Bay movie is Pearl Harbour, which is arguably the movie where he tries the hardest not to be Michael Bay.

 

[A3sir]

Bay isn't the only one people hate.

Action sequences aren't plot devices.

And yes, the audience is to blame, but they aren't going to change if you just keep feeding them shit.

 

[Worgen]

When I first saw transformers I enjoyed it, but I also saw it in a packed theater. When I got it on dvd and watched it, I hated it. To enjoy it I needed the energy of the audience to help cover up the weak aspects of it, like most of the pink fleshy things that kept running around or anything shia labeouf did.

 

[bz316]

Spot-on Bob. I might have a leg to stand on on the "it's the film-makers fault!" argument if not for the fact that I have listed on this very website several movies I admit to enjoying despite knowing they are objectively bad. The problem is us, America. If you want the kinds of things Bay makes to stop existing, either stop paying to see them or shut the hell up.

 

[Weaver]

The argument is kind of confusing. It's firstly that Michael Bay doesn't make that bad of movies, then secondly that the audience is the problem for going to see the movies. But if the movies aren't bad why it's the audience at fault for watching it?

 

[Strain42]

Bob, given that I know you're a huge fan of the Critic, I was half expecting you to throw out Jay Sherman's pulitzer prize winning speech towards the end of this video.

"The Sorry State of Films Today: Tomorrow, this essay will appear in every major newspaper in America, but I'll reach more people by reading it on this low rated early morning cable TV show. I am a movie critic by trade, and until recently, I got paid to tell you people which movies merely stink and which ones you shouldn't screen near an open flame. Well I'm putting the burden on lousy movies back on YOU. It's very simple. If you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies. If the movie used to be a TV show, just don't go. After Roman numeral two, give it a rest. If it's a remake of a classic, rent the classic. Tell them you want stories about people. Not a hundred million dollars of stunts and explosives. People, it's up to you! If the movie stinks, just don't go!"

It's hard to believe that a TV show from 1993 makes a point that seems more relevant than ever by today's standards. That's why I still argue the Critic literally was ahead of its time. I think that show would be a HUGE success now with our Twilight and our Comic Book Cinematic Universes and c'mon, Jay Sherman was INVENTED to make jokes about a movie called the Hunger Games...

...I think I may have lost my focus somewhere in this post, so I'll just say we should totally be working to get The Critic brought back in some capacity

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

For as long as he makes shooty movies he will be bashed. At least someone who makes shooty films is being bashed, lord knows the others are ignored to much.....

 

[Mullahgrrl]

Michael Bay is the Leni Riefenstahl of our generation.

 

[Roger]

Richard P. Fungus? Nobody's going to get that reference.