The Big Picture: Leave Michael Bay Alone

Triaed

Not Gone Gonzo
Jan 16, 2009
454
0
0
Adding some more text in a sea of text (... do you read these, Bob?)

Michael Bay represents the sins of Hollywood, you said, other directors are guilty of some of these sins too. The issue with Bay is that he embodies ALL of these sins in one person, heck, in a single movie. If that is not reason to call him out, I do not know what is.

You went from insulting Bay a couple of years ago to insulting the audience; perhaps there will be an episode in 2016 where you apologise to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I think the audience has some blame, but it is NOT all theirs, just the same as it is not all Hollywood's, nor Bay's for that matter. The matter is more complex and you know that the oversimplification and accusing the audience of being slob-loving pigs serves no purpose.

Oh well, in my opinion, Bay sucks, and I am surprised there were so many closet-defenders in the comments.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Ronack said:
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.
Sorry, remind me, how were Bad Boys II and The Rock not pandering to the idiot masses?
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
As ever, Bob, well said.

We can't blame anyone, really. Not everyone goes to the movies with the intent of watching something that's enriching or refreshing. Not everyone gets brought up on the idea that foreign cinema is worth it or that it isn't some sort of inscrutable Ur-Thing that's far too complex for mere humans to grasp. Not everyone is consistently on board to manifest open-mindedness and high-brow culture appeal.

In those cases, we turn to schlock for our entertainment. It offends those people who happen to be in the mood to gobble up some Woody Allen or some Almodovar, among many others, and that's unavoidable.

Schlock films aren't awful in and of themselves. They're just products; they can't hurt anybody. What *is* awful is seeing people who tune in for nothing *but* schlock because that's what gets the flashiest prime-time ads. In some ways, there's a parallel to be made between this discussion and Shuhei Yoshida's disappointment at seeing that there's a subset of gamers that willingly ignores indie games. The very same arguments apply.

I can't blame CoD fans or subscribers to EA's software catalog for purchasing what they purchase; it's their personal tastes being expressed! I have no right to blame them, even. People like whatever they damn well please, and that can involve as much or as little indie content or Auteur cinema as it can involve calling yourself a hardcore gamer while strictly praying at Call of Duty's altar.

It's sad when any form of willful exclusion happens and some outreach needs to take place, but the piggies that we are will like whatever kind of slop we choose.
 

keniakittykat

New member
Aug 9, 2012
364
0
0
I don't really hate Michael Bay. He makes some really entertaining popcorn movies.
But the second he tries to be all super serious, it all falls apart.

And I agree that the audience is a big part of the problem, I myself have had that realization a few years ago when I realized how much money 'Happy Madison' was making. Adam Sandler can be really good and creative, but it's his brain dead audience that practically makes him to do nothing but brain dead movies. And the same goes for Bay.

It's pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that's just sad.
Sure, one can make the argument that Transformers shouldn't have to uphold to any higher expectations because it only exists to sell toys. And a year ago I would have probably agreed with that. But in a world where the Lego movie, a film that also only exists to sell toys, can be a great, original and clever movie, there is no excuse for Transformers 4 to be the way it is.
 

mrhumble1

New member
Dec 16, 2012
12
0
0
Bob, you are way off here. Many of those posting are also not thinking before they post.

This guy gets it:

youji itami said:
Agree completely the USA audience is the problem with why so many terrible films make so much money!

Just look at the 3 highest grossing films in the US this year.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - $257,225,897
The LEGO Movie - $257,000,260
X-Men: Days of Future Past - $223,414,899

While such great films as.

Robocop - $58,607,007
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit - $50,577,412
Need for Speed - $43,577,636

Disappoint at the box office.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014&p=.htm


edit
This post is sarcasm by the way.
The idea that the general public are the problem is small-minded. People don't get to choose what Transformers movie they get. They watch what is in the theaters, and they have no choice as to what comes. It is Hollywood's responsibility to create a compelling product. Let me say that again:

IT IS HOLLYWOOD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE A COMPELLING PRODUCT.

Let's play make-believe. Say there are two Transformer movies out, at the same time. Both done by different studios. One is a Bay-gasm and the other is made by someone who respects the material (and let's assume this person was proficient at movie making). Only then we would truly get to see which movie wins. If one is a stupid, misogynistic, poorly written, and excessively long while the other is more thoughtful, with smart dialogue, a coherent narrative, and interesting characters. Then the public would get to choose which one to see and we would know what the public wants. Both are Transformers movies, so both would have giant robots blowing shit up.
That's really the only way to know, and it will never happen.

As the above post points out, excellent movies can MAKE TONS OF MONEY. If someone else made the Transformers movies, and made them well, they would make MORE MONEY than the existing ones. I know I am not the only person who will not see this movie because it is a POS. If it was well reviewed and a genuinely good sci-fi film, MORE people would see it. It's not like the only way to get people to see the movie is to make it crap, and the idea that people want to see crappy movies is faulty logic.

Bob actually went over this very well in his rant about the first or second Transformers movie. He made excellent points about how these movies have no excuse to be bad. They are movies about giant transforming alien robots. There is no excuse for them to be so bad. Hollywood just chooses for them to be by giving them to a director who doesn't give a shit about the Transformers.

The people are not the problem. They go see what is given to them because they can either choose to stay home, or see a bad movie. Many people just go ahead and try to enjoy it, and I cannot fault them for it. Just don't blame them for this mess. It is 100% Hollywood's fault.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Its not that I dont like michael bay. I just don't like michael bay for transformers. Or TMNT. I like michael bay when he's doing what he's comfortable in. Small cast action movies with human stars. The Rock, Bad Boyz II, Pain and Gain (especially Pain and Gain) are all great movies (to me at least, and in general serviceable if not fun and good) becuase they're stuff Michael bay probably honestly enjoys doing movies about and is comfrotable with. He's just not that with transformers. and its looking like TMNT.
 

RDubayoo

New member
Sep 11, 2008
170
0
0
And Bob defends Bay with what is essentially cinematic moral equivalence. No, sorry, you don't get it--Bay doesn't just do things that you might see in other movies, he does them BADLY. Take the redesign of classic Transformers in the movies, and compare them to how they look in Transformers Prime. The former look like a jumble of colored razor blades, whereas the latter have an iconic and pleasing look to them. You can't just say 'McDonald's is as good as Red Robin because they both make hamburgers' because that's a moronic line of reasoning. Come on. :p
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Generally this is why I don't get mad at companies for doing things I think are stupid, cheap, or ripping people off. people wouldn't buy it if there wasn't something they liked about it. If the guys peddling the crap make "better" stuff then somebody will come in and take their place.

Nintendo will always churn out the "fun for everybody" drek, Sony and Microsoft will always butt heads playing second fiddle to the PC's (and I say that as a console gamer primarily), and the masses will buy sequel after sequel all the while bemoaning for original IP.

To paraphrase Men in Black: a person is smart, people are dumb, stupid, panicky and you know it.
 

Tim Chuma

New member
Jul 9, 2010
236
0
0
I can't find the exact video on Youtube, but there is a funny clip of Roger Ebert talking about what happened when all the other film critics and people he had criticised saw "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens" for the first time. They had been waiting for a chance to get back at him and they did it in spades.

When you look at the Transformers movies in the context of 100+ years of cinema they are really only a small blip. There were very popular movies during the silent era that are not very well known now. I would recommend checking out some of the "archive" collections as you can find some really interesting stuff.

I did have the opportunity to see 5 John Woo movies in a weekend as 35mm prints (from the director's own collection) on the big screen last year, but decided against travelling up to the screening as it would have been too much (A Better Tomorrow, A Better Tomorrow 2, Bullet in the Head, Hard Boiled, the Killer), the other two movies were Big Boss and Fist of Vengeance and the other one was a Chang Cheh movie.

I do still buy DVDs even though a lot of people I know do not. I am too busy to go to the cinema that much but did manage to make it back to a double bill of Godzilla and Pacific Rim last night (had to leave early for the second one.) The Raid/The Raid 2 was a great double bill but a bit of a rowdy crowd. Under the Skin was probably the strangest movie I have seen for a while. Not sure I will go see the Babadook and Patrick (original not the remake).
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
Let's be honest. A video defending Bay at this point would gather a hell of a lot more views than one condemning him.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
I couldn't disagree with Bob more. In fact, since I usually agree with him, I can't think of a time when when I disliked an episode of of Big Picture more strongly. In the end, I think this episode, not his original Transformers review, will be the one that he -in time- comes to regret.

Since I am late seeing this one and so many have already commented, I don't know if anyone will read this, but here it goes: Bob has disrespected the audience, which -of course- is the first step towards finally becoming like Michael Bay. Bob has said before that Bay seems to be a Nihilist, and I agree on that; Bay doesn't seem to believe in anything. But becoming a nihilist is a long process of callousing, and the first part of that process is to lose hope in the decisions of others. That is why the majority of critics and film makers never criticize the audience -not out of cowardice- but because they are smart enough to see where that path leads.

Bay does not respect anything. Not his film or its characters -clearly- let alone his audience. While great film makers like Terrence Malick all have one thing in common: they have tremendous respect for their audience, and this is proven by the work they turn out. The people who turn out to see Transformers are not the problem. The problem is the callous way in which we treat each other, and -by extension- the callous way Bay treats his audience and the callous way Bob treats Bay's audience in this video. So, my advice -though trite- is "check yourself before you wreck yourself, Bob."
 

Iceklimber

New member
Feb 5, 2013
52
0
0
Hi anybody knows why after early reviews Moviebob reduced swear words and the few that are left are constantly beeped out?

Ôther Reviewers such as Yahtzee or Jim Sterling and the Comic keep cussing in their videos here so not sure why Moviebob stopped. If no one knows maybe could someone ask him on the next Escapist Expo?
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I went to the first Transformers movie.

Then I stopped. And I recommended my wife not go see it, and she didn't, because it was a stupid waste of two hours of my life.

Not the second movie everyone loves to rag on (and I'm not going to scold them for it; some of those reviews have offered far more entertainment than anything I can imagine the movie itself served up); the first one.

There was a snippet in the DVD extras for "The Island" where Bay said something like, "When there's an action scene, I tell the writers not to fill anything in with the script, just say, 'ACTION!' and let me run with it", and I thought, "And I bet the writers hate your ever-loving guts."

Yeah, the neighborhood might have a problem; that doesn't mean I have to tolerate the drug dealers.

And yes, other people might be guilty of the same sins, but the fact that one can read a laundry list of those sins and have one person be guilty of every one of them? Especially in our new willingness to eviscerate a product or person for being guilty of one of them, that's really saying something.

That he can do better just makes that he doesn't all the more damning.
 

Cpt. Slow

Great news everybody!
Dec 9, 2012
168
0
0
To be honest, I do go see the Transformers films. Maybe because it's a self sacrifice because everyone in my surroundings knows me to be a film enthusiast.

They ask me how I think about this film. And I always give them the answer they want: it's fine, as long as you have a couple of beers (or enough candy to make your blood rush if you are not at a drinking age). And your mind turned off because everything else won't make sense. Unless you have the logic of a 10 year old. Then it does make sense.

And the analogy of Michael Bay being a 'drug dealer' which isn't his fault, it's the people who buy the drugs falls flat. Because the fact that you are able to sell drugs, doesn't mean you have too.

But then again, I'd rather would have kids go to see Michael Bay's his drugs then going for the real thing. Sure, you won't get any wiser from the experience, but hey... at least you don't get any health issues in the long term. Only if you are a film critic, then high blood pressure would be a serious threat.
 

Corran006

New member
May 20, 2009
61
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
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.
Then the very next show he bashes Keven Smith.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
Overall a good episode.

But to be fair Bob, you can't lay the blame for the proliferation of Bay-type action movies on one specific audience. It's largely a function of the globalizing movie market. Sure the movies do well domestically BUT explosions and big dumb spectacle translate better into the ever-more-important "emerging movie markets" (i.e. China and India) than drama and comedy do. Rooted as the latter two are in culture-specific values and social conventions. I heard the new Transformers broke all kinds of box office records in China.

Like AAA games Hollywood movies are slowly but steadily becoming an all-or-nothing industry built on yearly tentpole franchises. Where you either win both the domestic and international box office, and win them consistently, or you go home.
 

teh_gunslinger

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did it better.
Dec 6, 2007
1,325
0
0
A good critic is not supposed to blame the audience for good movies failing and bad movies succeeding?

Why Bob, how delightfully humorous, considering your own tirade concerning that Pilgrim movie and the equally shitty Stallone movie!
 

O maestre

New member
Nov 19, 2008
882
0
0
Finally Bob this is one of your best videos in a long time, very well done. It is something that should be self evident, but still needs to be said in a very blunt way just like this.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
No, Bob, you are completely wrong and I see no reason to watch you anymore. You've come full circle and jumped the shark. I don't hate Michael Bay because I'm redirecting my hate from his audience, I hate Michael Bay because he makes fucking awful films. It's the exact same reason that I hate the painter Thomas Kinkade, because he produced fucking awful paintings. The fact that both of them have a unique style that is not "interchangeable" isn't a redeeming quality, because their styles....are fucking awful. Likening Michael Bay to John Woo because both directors use the SUBJECT of glorified violence is just....beyond my ability to chastise appropriately.

What you've done metaphorically is taken Albert Bierstadt's "In the Mountains" (1867) and put it right next to Paul Cezanne's "Mont Sainte-Victoire" (1885) and proclaimed that they are more or less the same because they are both landscape paintings of mountains. Nevermind the fact that those two paintings are outrageously and ridiculously different in how they depict the subject; I'd go so far as to say the subject of those two paintings are nearly irrelevant considering the incredibly wide chasm in the philosophy used to paint the subject. Both John Woo and Michael Bay may glorify violence but the difference in how they depict it is just as wide as the difference between those two painters, and also constitutes perhaps 90% of what actually matters when critically viewing an artform. Saying, "That's a mountain" when critiquing a painting is worthless, just as saying "That's violence" when critiquing a film. What matters is how the violence is depicted, is it like Chinatown? Or is it like The Running Man and which one is actually a better film for it's depiction?

There's a reason that there is an unwritten rule about critiquing an audience, because it's almost always totally irrelevant to the substance of an artwork and that's exactly what you are now choosing to ignore, the SUBSTANCE of the artwork, which is non-existent because Michael Bay is fucking awful at making films.