The Pros & Cons of Michael Bay - discussion topic

[GoktimusPrime]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever.

[M-bot]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever.

...and that's the point right there. "Bums on seats" films don't have to be bad, and Gok's example is a stellar one. AOE was extraordinarily bad, but it just didn't have to be. There's no reason we can't expect a movie that kills at the box office AND has great story, characters, writing, etc. Put simply, Michael Bay is demonstrably not the guy to do it. 4 attempts so far with ever diminishing returns as far as quality (and I would argue increasing perversion, eloquently put by Film Critic Hulk from BadAssDigest.com). Let someone else have a go I say, even though my enjoyment of TFs is not remotely affected either way. I've already decided to vote with my wallet if Bay directs a 5th TF film (for all the good that will do).

[drifand]

I am in agreement if everyone I believe here wants tf movies to succeed and not fail. Whether Bay or another director, I like to see a better movie.

[Magnus]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever.

The fact that the movies have made so much money at the box office shows that people do want to see the movies over and over again. You don't get those kind of returns on people only watching your movie once.

...and that's the point right there. "Bums on seats" films don't have to be bad, and Gok's example is a stellar one. AOE was extraordinarily bad, but it just didn't have to be. There's no reason we can't expect a movie that kills at the box office AND has great story, characters, writing, etc. Put simply, Michael Bay is demonstrably not the guy to do it. 4 attempts so far with ever diminishing returns as far as quality (and I would argue increasing perversion, eloquently put by Film Critic Hulk from BadAssDigest.com). Let someone else have a go I say, even though my enjoyment of TFs is not remotely affected either way. I've already decided to vote with my wallet if Bay directs a 5th TF film (for all the good that will do).

Once again, I can't help but think that the problem a lot of people have here comes more from the writing than Michael Bay's direction. Story and characters, which seem to be recurring points, come from the writing, which Bay does not do, so I think it's unfair to blame him on these points. The writing is the foundation on which everything else is built on.

On the point of character, I recommend people watch Bay's other movies - as I have said before, no shortage of character 'moments' in The Island, The Rock, Armageddon or Pain and Gain.


On a somewhat related point, I don't really get the story-related complaints. I can follow easily enough what's going on, what characters are doing and why (most of the time, anyway). Simplistic? Perhaps.

[drifand]

Bay still plays a part on what is approved on written. and since you said "a lot of people" on this thread it does shows there is not just a small amount of unsatisfied fans.

Besides the fan based, there are many viewers who are just shocked at the whole story plot.

There are bound to be people who love it 10/10, there is no denying that, I am just not seeing that many.

When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?

[GoktimusPrime]

The fact that the movies have made so much money at the box office shows that people do want to see the movies over and over again. You don't get those kind of returns on people only watching your movie once.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, per se. Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace was the highest grossing of all the Star Wars films, while Episode V The Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing (even in relative terms Ep I was the highest grossing of the Prequels while Ep V was the lowest of the Original Trilogy) (reference), but I reckon most fans would consider Empire to be the better story over Menace.

On the point of character, I recommend people watch Bay's other movies - as I have said before, no shortage of character 'moments' in The Island, The Rock, Armageddon or Pain and Gain.

This doesn't help Transformers.

On a somewhat related point, I don't really get the story-related complaints. I can follow easily enough what's going on, what characters are doing and why (most of the time, anyway). Simplistic? Perhaps.

The sequence of events is the plot. What the plot is actually about is the story. And the quality of a story is determined or driven by its characters. Not in terms of what they're doing, that's the plot. It's what's happening to them that drives the story.

AoE Optimus Prime is the only Transformer character who's had any development in these four films, so let's use him as an example (because there's no other ). In the beginning of the film, Optimus Prime has become a dark and embittered character. Having lost his faith in humanity, he has become spiritually lost. Through his relationship with Cade Yeager, Optimus Prime goes on a personal journey of rediscovery where he must learn to trust again. This is an arduous and difficult journey for him, as he encounters obstacles along the way as he delves deeper to discover the terrible truth behind the humans' betrayal against the Autobots. Now the problem is that this did NOT _drive_ the story of Age of Extinction. It was more something that almost happened in the background while other stuff was happening. AoE would have been a much better story if Optimus Prime's character arc were allowed to take centre stage.

Characterisation is much like the 'engine' of a story. The better it is, the stronger that 'engine' is the the greater drive a story has. Stories with weak character-development are like cars with weak engines. Yes, they can function, they can move, but they're not great. A movie that has loads of spectacular visuals and thrilling action but weak characterisation is like a car with say the chassis of a Lamborghini Aventador, but the engine of a Holden Gemini.

And why does Bay get the blame? He's the director. The director is like the captain of the ship or the head of state of a country -- he's not solely responsible for everything, but as the leader he accepts all praise or criticism. And it's because the director has the ultimate say in what goes into a film; he can veto and alter the script as he sees fit or elect to stick to the script. That's the burden of leadership -- the captain sails or sinks with his ship.

When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?

Okay, to be fair, Bay/Paramount don't make the toys -- that's Hasbro. Although the movie designs do directly influence the toys, Hasbro can also influence Paramount. e.g. Aaron Archer requested Bay to ensure that the Transformers had visible alt mode kibble in robot mode, which made them easier to translate as toys. Archer's since left Hasbro, and the AoE Transformers lack sufficient kibble in robot mode. I don't know if it's because Archer's replacement failed to maintain the same request, or if Bay/Paramount of elected to ignore it (which they can, as the movie is a separate legal entity from the toy franchise; that's why they can use vehicle licences which Hasbro can't (e.g. Audi, Ferrari etc.)). But Hasbro could also elect to make the toys less screen accurate and as better engineered toys, but then they'd cop criticism from some collectors for a lack of screen accuracy.

[Demonac]

People keep forgetting that AOE made most of its money from China (I wonder why?).
Lets do some numbers work:
AOE 'only' made 245m in the USA, 130m of that in the first weekend.
By comparison, DotM made 345m, RotF 400m, TF1 340m (These are US numbers, to keep things consistent).

[Magnus]

When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?

As I understand it, the point of the Masterpiece series was to bring contemporary engineering to classic toys/characters. There's no need to do that to movieverse characters because they already benefit from current engineering. As I said in my review of APS-01U, one opinion was that RotF leader Optimus was practically a Masterpiece already.

There was also the short-lived Movie Masterpiece series from Takara, with Starscream and Bumblebee. I'm kind of surprised that Sentinel Prime wasn't released in that line with a new paint job.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, per se.

The 'popular vs. good' debate is one I won't enter into here, since whether something like a movie is good (or at least likeable) or not is a matter of personal opinion. My point was that enough people liked it to result in the movies having the box office numbers that they have, so the filmmakers must be doing something right.

This doesn't help Transformers.

No, but my point is that Michael Bay can and does do characterisation well.

The sequence of events is the plot. What the plot is actually about is the story. And the quality of a story is determined or driven by its characters. Not in terms of what they're doing, that's the plot. It's what's happening to them that drives the story.

AoE Optimus Prime is the only Transformer character who's had any development in these four films, so let's use him as an example (because there's no other ). In the beginning of the film, Optimus Prime has become a dark and embittered character. Having lost his faith in humanity, he has become spiritually lost. Through his relationship with Cade Yeager, Optimus Prime goes on a personal journey of rediscovery where he must learn to trust again. This is an arduous and difficult journey for him, as he encounters obstacles along the way as he delves deeper to discover the terrible truth behind the humans' betrayal against the Autobots. Now the problem is that this did NOT _drive_ the story of Age of Extinction. It was more something that almost happened in the background while other stuff was happening. AoE would have been a much better story if Optimus Prime's character arc were allowed to take centre stage.

Characterisation is much like the 'engine' of a story. The better it is, the stronger that 'engine' is the the greater drive a story has. Stories with weak character-development are like cars with weak engines. Yes, they can function, they can move, but they're not great. A movie that has loads of spectacular visuals and thrilling action but weak characterisation is like a car with say the chassis of a Lamborghini Aventador, but the engine of a Holden Gemini.

Ok, I get what you're saying here. You've also hit upon (not for the first time)a major issue with the movies: the Transformers are often treated as peripheral or secondary characters, for whatever reason. There is character development and an emotional journey taking place within each movie - just not with the Transformers most of the time. Again, this is an issue with the writing, not necessarily Bay's direction. That's the point I was trying to make by suggesting people watch Bay's other movies.

And why does Bay get the blame? He's the director. The director is like the captain of the ship or the head of state of a country -- he's not solely responsible for everything, but as the leader he accepts all praise or criticism. And it's because the director has the ultimate say in what goes into a film; he can veto and alter the script as he sees fit or elect to stick to the script. That's the burden of leadership -- the captain sails or sinks with his ship.

Again, my point was that the script is what the director has to work with. Everything - including the director's choices - comes from there. Even so, as I typed before, it seems Michael Bay is a favourite target - Ridley Scott doesn't get blamed for Prometheus, or Sam Mendes for Skyfall, movies that have been criticised for questionable writing.

[Demonac]

No, but my point is that Michael Bay can and does do characterisation well.

Just out of interest, is your real name Michael Bay?
It's ok if it is. We just hate your lack of talent, not you personally.

[Smint]

People keep forgetting that AOE made most of its money from China (I wonder why.

2 reasons. Li Bing Bing and Hong Kong. Its partially a business decision when film makers court international stars and shoot overseas.


Flames on optimus, bumblebee peeing, ethnic stereotype robots etc are all Bay's idea. Even the designs are his.

Bay always loves saying he has a great relationship with the us military because he always makes them look good which he does. This is the kind of power a director has.

In the end it's always the director's call. He doesn't shoot if he's not happy with the script and writing. How much input is his only they know but I'm pretty certain all those obnoxious humans, those awful personalities are all his idea.

Do we all know why we fell in love with g1 and still remember them fondly. It's was because of the characters not the action.

Think about what defines magnus, starscream, megatron, rodimus, optimus. Now think about the movie characters ..yes I'm drawing a blank too.

I can remember the hash cookie eating parents, Ken jeong, John Malkovich why the fuck can't I remember any of the tf's?