The Pros & Cons of Michael Bay - discussion topic

[Magnus]

Yeah, but it becomes a sore point when the humans become more of a focus for the story than the Transformers. As Demonac pointed out, none of the Transformers in the film have any personality (save Optimus Prime in Age of Extinction, and even then a lot of people didn't like that personality, including Peter Cullen) -- what limited characterisation that existed in the films was more focused on the humans. The first three movies felt like "The Adventure of Sam & the US Army vs Giant Robots." The Autobots felt more like high powered accessories for the human protagonists, much like say J.A.R.V.I.S. was to Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers films.

I think the blame for the storyline does lie with the writers, but ALSO with Bay who directs the story, the writers and the vision. I don't think he takes his main characters - his bots - seriously enough. That's really apparent when you don't even bring the actor behind the main character, Optimus Prime (ie Peter Cullen) to the world premiere despite using that character (Optimus) as the limelight piece for the media at the same event, yet you bring the actors who had no real purpose to the storyline other than to add rubbish romeo and juliet scenes (yeah - I'm talking about the waste of space who played Shane). I think Bay focusses too much on his real life actors and forgets about the real stars and the real story - his Autobots, Decepticons, and whatever you would consider those KSI bots to be. If he was taking these films seriously we would see an underlying storyline development of (as an example) Optimus Prime from Autobot leader through the struggles and trials of being on Earth, displaced and struggling with a new norm/leading his team/learning from hardship to ultimately his purpose/fate and inevitable sacrifice to save the universe and fulfil his destiny.

Even with the best CGI and best voice talent in the world, without a purposeful story to emote, your characters are going to remain 2 dimensional and I think that's the current problem the Transformers movies face.

I'm not going to argue this point, because I agree, but I think the problem is twofold: there's a large cast of characters to manage, but also for humans, character development takes place during 'everyday'/between action scenes, whereas the robots are only seen up to, during and after action sequences, probably since the robots are time-consuming and expensive to put on screen. It's 'ok' for humans to stand around and talk, but apparently not for robots. Perhaps there's an expectation that the robots should be seen to be doing something when they're on screen (although this hasn't always been the case).

Also, as I posted before, humans are there to be relatable/audience surrogates, since our world is the backdrop for these battles.

After all, I did say I also wanted to see more robot screen time, and we have been getting it with each movie

The director is ultimately the captain of the ship when it comes to film making, and it is the director rather than the crew who accepts acclaim or blame for the strengths and weaknesses of the film. The director has the authority to make changes to the script during filming as s/he sees fit, as well as commanding the performers and crew in bringing the script to life as a film. Similarly a Prime Minister or Premier may be the head of a government which comprises many other ministers and senators, but ultimately it is the PM or Premier who accepts ultimate ownership of that government's performance. Such is the burden of leadership.

Yeah, I agree that the director has final say, but their decisions are based on the script, which is the foundation of the movie. Remember, movies released in the months after the writer's strike in 2008 suffered, since they were rushed in the writing phase to meet production and release deadlines. Even so, I can't help but wonder if Michael Bay is a favourite target - people don't blame Ridley Scott for Prometheus, or Sam Mendes for Skyfall's failings.

I actually think a better movie comparison to Transformers would be Fast and Furious 7. I'm not a fan of the F&F franchise but hubby dragged me along to the latest one and I was impressed with the balance between the action sequences and the flow of the storyline. With actors like Rock and Vin Diesel you don't get a lot of "expression" and yet somehow the story and the way it flowed did bring out the best of these guys while still providing fast cars, lots of explosions, action and even the odd bit of sexualisation. I was pleasantly surprised by the film actually having more to it than I expected.
I sat there thinking - why couldn't TF4 be like this? Why couldn't they have writers bring enough substance to the story... to the characters... to make you care like this movie does? Let's face it - there are a lot of scenes in F&F that could translate directly into a Transformers storyline and even some of the vehicles matched up with past and present TF characters.

It's interesting that Fast and Furious has been brought up as a comparison - it's been noted that some aspects of the movie have been compared to Bay's style, yet F&F has been reviewed more favourably. Some suspect a double-standard which views Michael Bay more negatively for whatever reason. Perhaps, as has been opined, people in cars are more 'accessible' to audiences than large alien robots.

As for Avengers. It's directed by Joss Whedon... who really does live for his characters... possibly a bit TOO much in the new film (did anyone else think they overdid the Hawkeye scenes?) but he makes a point of understanding the source material, the personalities, strengths and weaknesses and building on them (and he does this with every film/TV show he directs). You can tell he actually put thought into and cares about the storytelling aspect as well as the CGI and explosions. I always wonder what his take would be on a Transformers film as I think it would be a vastly different vision to that of Michael Bay.

One opinion I've read is that because Bay isn't a 'fanboy,' he might not be as invested or as sentimental as, say, Whedon (this 'investment' could also be due to the fact that Whedon wrote the scripts for both Avengers movies).

I disagree with this point - Look at most recent Bay or Bay affiliated movies - They all follow the same stupid trends regardless of who the writer is.

Bay's Turtles for example, they follow all the basic failings of the TF movies and clearly identifiable in style to most Bay movies. He makes the writers write a script that basically link his action scenes together, there is no room for plot or meaningful characters.

Have you seen The Island or even Pain and Gain? No shortage of character moments there, and I have yet to come across a Michael Bay movie where the overarching plot isn't clear or present in some form. Maybe I'm taking things too literally, but I really don't get the 'no plot' criticism.

In Transformers, character interaction and development is taking place - just not with the robots. See above.

Ninja Turtles had a lot of turtle screen time, more so than the first Transformers did, so on that front, the Turtles were pushed as main characters more aggressively.

I watch these films out of fan obligation. When a few film comes out, I always watch it on the first day. I expect the film to suck, but desperately hope to be proven wrong. I dare them to prove us wrong on Transformers 5 and make it freakin' awesome. Go ahead... make us eat our words. DO EET!!

Um... doesn't that mentality kind of ensure you'll hate it, since you're expecting something to suck and therefore will look for aspects that suck to confirm your suspicion? I'm certainly guilty of this myself, mind you, but I'm just pointing it out.