The Big Picture: Leave Michael Bay Alone
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See, the problem is that nowadays its qutie popular to send blue-ray to smaller movie theaters. they use blue-ray players to project these movies. these blue-ray leak. Pirates often get it BEFORE the legal costumers do. this is terrible for sale incentive.Aaron Sylvester said:Whoops yeah I meant 1080p bluray, not DVD lol. Movies like Transformers pretty much exist to be played at 1080p minimum.
To be honest the only reason cinemas are even relevant in this era (where a large percentage of people own huge TVs and surround sound) is because the bluray release is delayed for weeks/months. And the only reason bluray is delayed is because the moment someone gets their hands on one it goes straight onto the internet and makes torrent sites explode. If 1080p copies were released on day 1 then movie studios/etc would lose a HUGE portion of their revenue. Last I heard something like 70-80% of their money is made in first 2 weeks of being in cinema. The number of people purchasing the blu-ray copies is absolutely tiny compared to the number of people who are paying to watch it in cinema. The appeal of bluray/DVD collections is dying as hard drives have become significantly cheaper over the last decade, 1TB can easily hold something like 150-200+ 1080p movies (compressed with efficient encoding ofc, nobody likes 50gb raw blurays).
Then again, cinemas wouldn't exactly turn into ghost towns (especially not Imax) because there's still a certain thrill to get out of watching stuff on a 40 foot screen surrounded by 15+ booming speakers, something that just can't be achieved at home. But yeah they would lose a huge chunk of revenue and it could mean disaster for Hollywood.
But Transformers is far from the only movie series to which that applies.
Maybe its worth thinking that more people would buy Blue-rays if they were actually available. Like i said, i would buy far more if i wouldnt have to wait 6 months for release. the reason most of thier money is made in cinema is because cinema is the ONLY legitimate way to see the movie. also its worth to remmeber that snydication is often udnervalued and actually brings quite some money if its the type of movie that likes to "play on every christmas".
As far as hard drive size and internet speeds. yes, thats why netflix got popular. thats why i was arguing for years for good quality download service, because currently the only way to download good quality movies is the illegal one. thats missing a huge market right there.
I like 50 GB Bluerays. they are far from RAW though. [a minute of 1080p 8bit 25fps video that isnt compressed takes 9.3 GB[/b] A blueray can hold a whoopping 5 minutes of uncompressed video. Now, of course there are some codecs that remain pretty losless unless your looking for faults that can compress it somewhat. however it will enver look equally good as raw. raw is 155.5 MB/sec stream. Thats why we hit HDMI 1.1 limit and need HDMI 2.0, theres A LOT of data. Now, that is not to say that i want to download RAW, however the "compressed so bad it may as well be 480p" netflix/youtube quality or the illegal 8 GB BRRips arent anywhere close to what i want. I do like the concept of the better quality 25 GB rips that float around in illegal space. why cant you sell me that? its not like they dont have it - they have bluerays after all.
Oh and 1TB is small nowadays. this is why people laughed at consoles 500GB, PCs have moved past 500GB 6 years ago. I have ONLY 4TB and i run out
what is a diaster for hollywood is the same thing that was a disaster for the music industry - they think their 19th century trade models apply in modern world and the world has moved past them. so they try to enforce 19th century trade models by buying laws.
Capcha: dream big
I do, i dream in 4k!
I'm not a fan of Michael Bay movies either and as a result I don't watch them. It's hard for me to get angry at something I don't see. I saw Armageddon and Bad Boys one and I didn't really like either of them. As such I tend to stay away from his movies.
This included that Transformer movies. However, I must confess that I was never a fan of the cartoon either. In fact as a kid I can remember not liking the show at all. I was into the toys and loved them. I used to see the toys as getting two toys in one, it was great fun.
But I had my own ideas of what the back story for the characters and who the good guys and bad guys were. The show conflicted with that. I felt almost as if the show it self was telling me how to play with my own toys and I didn't like anything telling me hoe to play with my own stuff.
It is interesting how everyone watches these moves and then hates but continues to watch them anyway.
In short I never got on the hating Michael Bay wagon, I simply avoid his movies, the same way I avoid Call of Duty games.
This included that Transformer movies. However, I must confess that I was never a fan of the cartoon either. In fact as a kid I can remember not liking the show at all. I was into the toys and loved them. I used to see the toys as getting two toys in one, it was great fun.
But I had my own ideas of what the back story for the characters and who the good guys and bad guys were. The show conflicted with that. I felt almost as if the show it self was telling me how to play with my own toys and I didn't like anything telling me hoe to play with my own stuff.
It is interesting how everyone watches these moves and then hates but continues to watch them anyway.
In short I never got on the hating Michael Bay wagon, I simply avoid his movies, the same way I avoid Call of Duty games.
my issue is accepting that "big block buster" has to ="bad"cathou said:
Edge of Tomorrow (which unfortatnly under performed) is an action movie..but a GOOD action movie, not brilliant but GOOD, Gravity was a hit and a thriller and that was good...the marvel movies have been more or less consistantly "good"
I havent seen a bay movie since the 1st transformers but untill I hear that his portrayly of women/minorites gets better than I see no reason to excuse his shittyness...but hey if people like his stuff then more power to them
As someone who rarely gets a chance to go to the cinema due to expenditure and distance to travel, I have to choose what movies I go and see carefully.
I cannot afford going to see an "average movie".
I have to see a "great movie".
Mediocrefilms belong on the TV where if I am not enjoying it, I haven't lost much.
I do agree the problem is the BAMSPLOSION demographic. People want to see pretty things explode.
Whilst I want to see something and be very happy that I saw it. (Lord of the Rings, Happy Potters, Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass 1)
I cannot afford going to see an "average movie".
I have to see a "great movie".
Mediocrefilms belong on the TV where if I am not enjoying it, I haven't lost much.
I do agree the problem is the BAMSPLOSION demographic. People want to see pretty things explode.
Whilst I want to see something and be very happy that I saw it. (Lord of the Rings, Happy Potters, Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass 1)
The entire time I was watching this I kept thinking "the reason people hate this guy especially is because of how popular his movies are." Then you took the words right out of my mouth. While I do agree that it's the average American's shitty taste in movies that is the main issue, I think critics are probably berating him more to try and wake those average Americans up. Then again, those probably aren't the types of people to actually read reviews in the first place so you're probably completely right.
Edit: Then again, who am I to say that someone else has shitty taste in anything? If someone enjoys some form of entertainment, they should be allowed to continue enjoying it as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Plenty of good movies still get made despite Bay's movies being successful. Really, there's no reason to get so worked up over it.
Edit: Then again, who am I to say that someone else has shitty taste in anything? If someone enjoys some form of entertainment, they should be allowed to continue enjoying it as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Plenty of good movies still get made despite Bay's movies being successful. Really, there's no reason to get so worked up over it.
I don't watch his movies because I want to watch HIS MOVIES... I watch them because I love movies, I love going to the movies. Sadly when I go to watch a movie with friends it turns out that stuff like Transformers, Armageddon, The Island, etc. rank pretty high on the vote for consensus.
Lately his movies have become utter trash... Not because of any "childhood ruining", "sex selling" or even "over the top action" aspects. Bur because of the extremely awful visual and audio aspects that make watching his movies give me clustering headaches, and eye strain like you wouldn't believe.
I'm talking of course about the colour filters, the lens glare abuse, the drunk cameraman "make action look awesome-r" technique, the cranked up volume when there's action but turned down when dialog. Also seeing as most of movies these days are being built for 3D everything that can be thrown in the viewers' faces, is.
TLR - His movies don't suck, but the visual techniques he employs really hurt my eyes.
Lately his movies have become utter trash... Not because of any "childhood ruining", "sex selling" or even "over the top action" aspects. Bur because of the extremely awful visual and audio aspects that make watching his movies give me clustering headaches, and eye strain like you wouldn't believe.
I'm talking of course about the colour filters, the lens glare abuse, the drunk cameraman "make action look awesome-r" technique, the cranked up volume when there's action but turned down when dialog. Also seeing as most of movies these days are being built for 3D everything that can be thrown in the viewers' faces, is.
TL
R - His movies don't suck, but the visual techniques he employs really hurt my eyes.
What's with the sudden non-hate of michael bay? Sure hollywood has problems, so many of those that one may be forgiven for just stopping to care about new movie releases entirely. Like i did for example, last time i went to the movies was for some circle jerk that a little town where i live produced by itself and it wasn't very good.
Anyway, michael bay is in many ways the worst incarnation of all of hollywoods problems and that does deserve some hate.
Burning millions of dollars for special effects that still don't look as good then the stuff george lucas did before he went insane? Michael bay is the master of that. All the things moviebob mentioned that other people do as well or even before michael bay? Well, bay does it worse, more blatant and he doesn't even get a bonus for bringing anything new to anything.
The american godzilla movie back in 1999 or something brought something new to the franchise; godzilla can be killed now.
Wasn't a particular good new thing but it was new at least.
Bay doesn't even get that.
So yeah, bay is just a stand in for everything wrong with modern cinema but then again, while everyone is guilty of making shitty movies, he manages to one up them all.
Here's another guilty party: the film critics. You guys know how many people go to the cinema to watch and hear explosions because their home cinema isn't quite as big as the cinema system in the freaking cinema. A demo reel like the transformers movies would be quite enough for that. I went to the movies for that.
Big explosions on the screen will drown out the cellphone talkers two rows in front of me, subtle gestures and brilliant acting, no matter how good, will not.
It might move me when i watch the movie at home, where the experience wont be disrupted.
I went to the cinema for movies with explosions because the cinema has a better screen and a better sound system then i have at home. For movies that don't need that i don't need to go to the cinema. I can watch those at home and have a better experience.
Which might be a reason why explosion movies do better at the box office.
Anyway, michael bay is in many ways the worst incarnation of all of hollywoods problems and that does deserve some hate.
Burning millions of dollars for special effects that still don't look as good then the stuff george lucas did before he went insane? Michael bay is the master of that. All the things moviebob mentioned that other people do as well or even before michael bay? Well, bay does it worse, more blatant and he doesn't even get a bonus for bringing anything new to anything.
The american godzilla movie back in 1999 or something brought something new to the franchise; godzilla can be killed now.
Wasn't a particular good new thing but it was new at least.
Bay doesn't even get that.
So yeah, bay is just a stand in for everything wrong with modern cinema but then again, while everyone is guilty of making shitty movies, he manages to one up them all.
Here's another guilty party: the film critics. You guys know how many people go to the cinema to watch and hear explosions because their home cinema isn't quite as big as the cinema system in the freaking cinema. A demo reel like the transformers movies would be quite enough for that. I went to the movies for that.
Big explosions on the screen will drown out the cellphone talkers two rows in front of me, subtle gestures and brilliant acting, no matter how good, will not.
It might move me when i watch the movie at home, where the experience wont be disrupted.
I went to the cinema for movies with explosions because the cinema has a better screen and a better sound system then i have at home. For movies that don't need that i don't need to go to the cinema. I can watch those at home and have a better experience.
Which might be a reason why explosion movies do better at the box office.
I think people like to rag on Bay because for the majority of his movies there isn't much else to talk about. Big action scenes with little to discuss other than to state what is going on. Characters that often tend to be one dimensional to the point that often all you can do is state what they did since it's often plot driven more than character driven. Which becomes more obvious when you actually start to think about their actions and how illogical they are at times.
Bay is fast food for movies. Not exactly beneficial but it satisfies your craving for the time being. And speaking of fast food comparison, Bob's comment about it's the audience's fault for continuing to go see them not the directors fault for giving them what they wanted reminds we of back in the day when a bunch of hate was directed at the fast food industry. You had people claiming it was McDonald's fault they were fat, when really it was the fact that they would eat enough to feed a family of four at every meal.
Bay is fast food for movies. Not exactly beneficial but it satisfies your craving for the time being. And speaking of fast food comparison, Bob's comment about it's the audience's fault for continuing to go see them not the directors fault for giving them what they wanted reminds we of back in the day when a bunch of hate was directed at the fast food industry. You had people claiming it was McDonald's fault they were fat, when really it was the fact that they would eat enough to feed a family of four at every meal.
I've always blamed the public! *shakes fist* People are bastards, people are why we can't have nice things! People are why Grown Ups 2 beat Pacific Rim at the box office in its opening week. People are why Adam Sandler, Kristen Stewart, Shia LeBouf, Megan Fox and Michael Bay still get work! You're all bastards!
You know what? I actually enjoy the transformers movies. Are they great movies with good story and characters? oh god no, but it is very damn entertaining. Every now and then I like having a movie where I can just watch and not have to think about the story or worry about the characters. There is nothing wrong with enjoying mindless garbage every now and then as long as that's not the only thing you watch. Those ignorant people you claim to be the problem also could be the very same ones who go and watch other great and smart ones as well.
Nice to see that somebody gets it. I will tell you a quick story.Lvl 64 Klutz said:
When Transformers 2 came out, I was working at a school, teaching English. A friend and colleague suggested that we went to see it. I agreed, and we went that Friday evening. We bought our tickets, I bought my popcorn, and see sat down, ready to be entertained. Two and how ever many minutes later, with Megatron and Starscream flying of into space, promising revenge, I turned to my friend and said "roll on number 3".
I absolutely loved it and was glad I went. As to why is simple. It was a Friday evening, we had both been working hard, often intellectually demanding jobs. We needed to be awake, alert, constantly. Always things to do, emergencies to solve or prevent. Now, it was Friday evening, now it was time to unwind. Now, how people choose to do this is up to them. Some like to drink half their own bodyweight in Miller's brew or whatever. My friend and I chose to watch a film that was utterly and gloriously dumb and just not care. It was a catharsis of sorts, and a damn good one.
As for my lack of fuss over the source material, the reason is also a simple one. I am British and, though US 80's cartoons (He-Man, etc) were a big thing, there was other stuff out there. My childhood passions were Lego, Asterix, and Tintin; all of European origin. Other children my age did like (and own) Transformers, but this was not as widespread in the US. Thus the lack of any genuine emotional weight attached. In other words, I went to watch giant robots beat the hell out of each other, not re-live my childhood.
Personally, I'd have to agree, but some of the blame can be laid at the low barrier to entry as well, the same as gaming. Theater performances and MUDs generally have a more appreciable fanbase because of their requirements of the audience... retrogaming and many movies that require foreknowledge or knowledge of the subject to progress fit this standard as well, with similar results.
The central problem of "economy vs. art" is that bad art takes less energy and sells better than good art, leading to both major-selling bullshit and the fact that more people are going to *try* to make shit movies this year than something interesting or groundbreaking.
I think your statements about the anti-intellectual movement and the poor state of education in the states is probably getting at the core of the matter, more than anything... but how do we fix that?
The central problem of "economy vs. art" is that bad art takes less energy and sells better than good art, leading to both major-selling bullshit and the fact that more people are going to *try* to make shit movies this year than something interesting or groundbreaking.
I think your statements about the anti-intellectual movement and the poor state of education in the states is probably getting at the core of the matter, more than anything... but how do we fix that?
Personally, I don't even think that applies to Bob. I actually think he's simply redirected the hate and bile he used to spew at Michael Bay('s Transphormers movies). These days it's Marc Webb and his The Amazing Spider-Man movies that are Bob's punching bag.Headbiter said:
Thanks bob for calling me an idiot and insulting your audience because of our guilty pleasures. Why don't you be the king and show us American idiots the light.
You know, I'm really considering seeing the new Transformers movie. Why? Well, it'll be fun. I don't think I'm going to hate it. At the very least, I can appreciate the modeling and rendering techniques that went into it, but moreover, like I said, it'll be fun. I don't know what these movies entail, as I've only seen the first, and it's been so long that all I remember are some action scenes, slapstick humor, and a 'chosen one' adventure with a main protagonist that I didn't really like. Really, I don't care.
The movie isn't designed to give you something to think about afterwards. It's basically like visual cocaine. From what I've observed, from other critics, those around me, and the previews themselves, the movie is designed to be a juvenile, action packed roller-coaster ride. Blaming people for going to see that is like blaming people for going to an amusement park.
I mean, who knows, maybe I'll see it, and it'll be complete masturbatory trash and I'll then be inclined to agree with you (that I'm dumb for thinking it'll be fun). However, with what I know of the movie so far, I think, as I assume most others think, it looks fun. Then again, so does jumping off a bridge, yet most people know better than to try that, but that's not the point.
I rationalize, like others probably rationalize, that I've got League for my urge to tryhard, great, small indie titles, both interactive and non-interactive, for when I need a thought provoking piece of media in which I can process for weeks to come, mainly anime, and a mind that tends to make terrible fanfiction I will never write about. Sometimes, I want to witness something I know won't affect me deeply, if at all. Sometimes, I just want to see giant robots hump eachother, and not feel bad about it, because this time, it's not some weird hentai.
Besides, if I don't slot out something completely void of thought provoking material in my mind, the important things that need to be thought about, like, say, my chemistry homework, won't really be pondered to its full potential.
The movie isn't designed to give you something to think about afterwards. It's basically like visual cocaine. From what I've observed, from other critics, those around me, and the previews themselves, the movie is designed to be a juvenile, action packed roller-coaster ride. Blaming people for going to see that is like blaming people for going to an amusement park.
I mean, who knows, maybe I'll see it, and it'll be complete masturbatory trash and I'll then be inclined to agree with you (that I'm dumb for thinking it'll be fun). However, with what I know of the movie so far, I think, as I assume most others think, it looks fun. Then again, so does jumping off a bridge, yet most people know better than to try that, but that's not the point.
I rationalize, like others probably rationalize, that I've got League for my urge to tryhard, great, small indie titles, both interactive and non-interactive, for when I need a thought provoking piece of media in which I can process for weeks to come, mainly anime, and a mind that tends to make terrible fanfiction I will never write about. Sometimes, I want to witness something I know won't affect me deeply, if at all. Sometimes, I just want to see giant robots hump eachother, and not feel bad about it, because this time, it's not some weird hentai.
Besides, if I don't slot out something completely void of thought provoking material in my mind, the important things that need to be thought about, like, say, my chemistry homework, won't really be pondered to its full potential.
As Bob himself points out, it isn't because Bay commits a few cinema sins (every one and every movie does.) The problem is that his movies are often nothing BUT a torrential downpour of awful. They aren't even bad in a way that one can appreciate. I can appreciate the earnest effort put in by a budding cook who makes a shitty meal. I cannot appreciate McDonalds.
If you crank out a good movie, such sins can be over looked. You crank out a shit movie that is chalk full of every conceivable sins and the sins are what everyone's going to remember. You make most of your career out of making said films and it's no wonder you're famous for being awful and everyone's favorite whipping boy!
As for the whole "It's the audience's fault!" claim, yeah, sure, the people that pay for a product are culpable for more of the product being made. But this race to the bottom is merely funded by the audience, they aren't the ones driving the damned cars. Audiences also funded stupid TV from the mid nineties an through to today. Crappy reality shows have made a mint. Does this indicate that what the audiences want is enough reality TV show to choke a whale? No, it's simply market over saturation which leads to a faulty conclusion; the audiences like stupid shit, and only stupid shit, because they are stupid.
Continuing with the TV comparison, someone got the brilliant idea that sweeping, epic television was ripe for a comeback. Audiences were largely sick of flipping through endless channels of "reality" TV and needed some counterpoint to this, and in response to this need we now have a tremendous number of television shows banking on depth and substance (comparatively) instead of the Honey Boo Boos of the world.
Audiences will keep seeing Bay's movies so long as they keep being made, but this does NOT indicate that that's primarily what they want; people are just going to see what's being produced. If movie makers make shit, we'll have to watch shit if we want to go to the movies. If movie makers make good movies, we'll likely go see those as well.
So is poor education and anti-intellectualism in America also responsible for more and more non-Americans paying to see our dumb films? Or is it that people just watch whatever movies get made regardless of quality? I'm betting it's the latter. Did Breaking Bad get successful and Jersey Shore get cancelled because the audiences in America suddenly got smarter, or were people watching Jersey Shore and its ilk because that's what made up most of what there was to watch on TV? Blaming anti-intellectualism or poor education for people watching stupid films is a cop out at best or a way of trying to insert a bit of political ideology at worst, and in either case is not only not the core of the matter, its role is probably of only minor significance if any at all.
If you crank out a good movie, such sins can be over looked. You crank out a shit movie that is chalk full of every conceivable sins and the sins are what everyone's going to remember. You make most of your career out of making said films and it's no wonder you're famous for being awful and everyone's favorite whipping boy!
As for the whole "It's the audience's fault!" claim, yeah, sure, the people that pay for a product are culpable for more of the product being made. But this race to the bottom is merely funded by the audience, they aren't the ones driving the damned cars. Audiences also funded stupid TV from the mid nineties an through to today. Crappy reality shows have made a mint. Does this indicate that what the audiences want is enough reality TV show to choke a whale? No, it's simply market over saturation which leads to a faulty conclusion; the audiences like stupid shit, and only stupid shit, because they are stupid.
Continuing with the TV comparison, someone got the brilliant idea that sweeping, epic television was ripe for a comeback. Audiences were largely sick of flipping through endless channels of "reality" TV and needed some counterpoint to this, and in response to this need we now have a tremendous number of television shows banking on depth and substance (comparatively) instead of the Honey Boo Boos of the world.
Audiences will keep seeing Bay's movies so long as they keep being made, but this does NOT indicate that that's primarily what they want; people are just going to see what's being produced. If movie makers make shit, we'll have to watch shit if we want to go to the movies. If movie makers make good movies, we'll likely go see those as well.
This I agree with. Shitty movies with bad plots that use action sequences in place of telling an actual story are easier to make than anything compelling, and people will watch them because that's what's being made.Aitamen said:
The idea that people watch stupid movies/shows because they are stupid themselves is just not true at all. All sorts of people watch stupid movies, whether educated or not, liberal or conservative, smart or dumb. Hell, as more transformers movies got made, not only did they make more money, but by the time Dark Side of the Moon came out, a much greater percentage of that money came from the world-wide take.
So is poor education and anti-intellectualism in America also responsible for more and more non-Americans paying to see our dumb films? Or is it that people just watch whatever movies get made regardless of quality? I'm betting it's the latter. Did Breaking Bad get successful and Jersey Shore get cancelled because the audiences in America suddenly got smarter, or were people watching Jersey Shore and its ilk because that's what made up most of what there was to watch on TV? Blaming anti-intellectualism or poor education for people watching stupid films is a cop out at best or a way of trying to insert a bit of political ideology at worst, and in either case is not only not the core of the matter, its role is probably of only minor significance if any at all.
