keserak said:
This is the first time (maybe the second) I've seen a comments thread in one of Bob's posts where the first set of comments read easily had a better grasp of the facts than Bob himself did -- perhaps because in the earlier case, the subject matter was more obscure. In any event, the notion that Bay shouldn't be singled out is ridiculous since anyone can have completely legitimate reasons for disliking Bay's work and disliking Bay as a person -- which, while Bob explicitly said he wouldn't do, anyone else could have reason to. Keep in mind that Bay indulges in racists jokes in his movies: that's enough, full stop, to say that that guy is a jackass. If there are other bad directors and screenwriters out there who do not throw out insulting racist stereotypes, one can already make a distinction -- a personal distinction, not just a professional one -- on those grounds alone.
That's sort of the problem with Bay. Much of his professional failings have a lot to do with his personal failings (see also his relationship with female leads). He's a hard man not to dislike.
I think disliking his audience is a bit of projection: I found Bay's work offensive in a screening of Transformers 1, where most of the audience (the people in the theater with me, not the global audience) was similarly unimpressed. I found him disagreeable when reading about him afterwards. As a result, I didn't contemplate his acutal "audience" until film critics brought them up. Film critics may be concerned about his audience; we, an audience, can ignore such concerns and just call him, and his work, terrible.
I don't think that Bob changing his mind is wrong, nor that he's necessarily being contrarian for its own sake. That said, the "he drastically alters established franchises" argument was total crap. Bay is openly hostile to the fans of the franchise he signed up to direct, and is openly hostile to the source material, and he's really goddamn bad at changing said source material for the better, unlike ALL of the examples Bob gave. All of them. This not only undermined his point, it offered an excellent counterpoint: Bay deserves scorn precisely because of this unique combination of poor skill and arrogance. A poster above already debunked a similar problem with the argument that Bay has "peers" in the gratuitious violence department.
And there's a distinction to be made here between the alienated audiences of Bay's films -- those that went to a Bay film, found it terrible, and rejected Bay and his work -- and the media. The media may have illegitimate reasons for disliking Bay, but the general audience does not. We, many moviegoers, hate seeing his shit because it's shit. There are other moviegoers who like his films. Here's the thing, Bob: the moviegoers that despise his films do not have anything to say about those that like them. Those are two separate groups of moviegoers, and neither is commenting about the other in any vastly public way.
The general public hasn't expressed distaste for brainless action flicks: some media outlets have. The two groups should not be conflated: though they have similar feelings about Bay, they have different conclusions and reasons for those conclusions.
If Bob wants to criticize his peers, fine. But the non-Hollywood/media-professionals amongst us have no need to apologize for thinking that Bay's an obnoxious person who often makes terrible movies, because -- news flash -- Bay's an obnoxious person who often makes terrible movies.
I couldn't care less about the media intelligencia's hangups. I'm a "normal" moviegoer and Michael Bay's work and personality are crap.
"We're" the problem, Bob? Like the old joke goes, "What is this 'we' shit, kemosabe?"
*slow clap*
Well put, good sir.
As much as I love Bob, this is one topic where we have to disagree. I'm not one to call him a defeatist, but he comes off worn the fuck out with these movies. But, to be honest, if I had to watch half of the shit he has to for his job, I'd beg for death's sweet embrace right away. While other online reviews are willing to give TF4 a pass, I've had my fill of Bay and his idiot man-child world long ago. Which is why I never saw
Pain And Gain at all. It may be "good" but if I want to see full-on debauchery, I can go rent a copy of
The Wolf of Wall Street anytime. At least Scorsese knows how to do something like that properly.
I totally agree with you on your comments on Bay lacking the skills. While Bob mentioned that other filmmakers do the same, there are differences between Bay and other filmmakers like Guillermo del Toro. Guillermo love what he makes, he has a drive for what he makes, and he loves his fans dearly. You can clearly see his passion in movies like
Pacific Rim or the Hellboy movies or his earlier works like
The Devil's Backbone. He takes what he's grown up with, be it his love for monsters or his personal fears, and paints a wonderful picture with it to draw viewers into his bizarre but fascinating world. Does he take liberties with source material, yes. But there is a difference between altering the source for the sake of the story (or, in some cases, the whim of the studio higher-ups) and altering it because you don't give a fuck.
And that is Michael Bay's problem.
He doesn't give a fuck.
He doesn't give a fuck about what he makes is good or bad for cinema.
He doesn't give a fuck about fellow filmmakers or actors.
In fact, he couldn't give 1/8 of a fuck towards his fan base.
Is he better off making R-rated movies like
Bad Boys II? Perhaps. But if he doesn't like working on franchises like Transformers, why the fuck did he take them at all?
Because he got paid big for it and continues to get paid big-regardless on whether or not the end result is good or bad.
He only cares about getting paid, one way or another.
And that is what pisses me off the most about Bay and, trust me, he's not alone in this boat. IMO, The Asylum and Tyler Perry are also guilty of this "Don't give a fuck" attitude towards making movies. As long as they get paid for it, be it from who hires them or from a major return from moviegoers, they're happy. It's the cinematic equivalent of getting a trophy just for participation. I like bad movies as much as the next guy, but the contrast between
Plan 9 From Outer Space and
Sharknado is that the former wasn't intentionally making a bad movie. While Ed Wood may not have been a competent filmmaker, you can't say he didn't put some heart into that film. I doubt you could say the same for the people behind
Sharknado but that's how I see it.
Bob should have never apologized to Bay for calling him a "Douche-bag filmmaker". No, I'm not the kind of person that believes in the John Wayne saying "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness." but, given that I've read the articles on how Bay acts towards others (both his fans and actors), I'm inclined to make an exception. Guessing Bob never read those when making this episode...
As for blaming the masses for liking this shit, the "What is this 'we' shit, kemosabe?" is spot on. Not everyone wants to see this crap but its what Hollywood is making these days. Be honest, do you really think every person in the black community wants to support Tyler Perry's latest piece of shit movie? Fuck no! But that is what Hollywood thinks everyone wants. Humanity may be slow to react, but it does get wise over time. Eventually, hacks like Bay and Perry will be shown the way out. It's gonna take a lot of effort from us and actual filmmakers who do care about what they put on the screen.
The world does not need hack filmmakers.
The world does not need douche-bag filmmakers.
The world does not need filmmakers like Michael Bay.
