I understand the need for things to be kept somewhat on "track" but the comparison between the director of said film and another film and it's relation to one's enjoyment of said film (footage) as a whole is hardly off track by measure. When we get into why eating your greens is good for you then perhaps. But who I am...
First, you're establishing a false dichotomy between action and storytelling in film: one is not achieved at the expense of the other. It's not a zero-sum game. I don't know why you say that a movie which puts the story first "would almost certainly have no action along with a lot of other stuff." That kind of logic implies that big-budget action-packed projects can't have a cohesive story at its core, which -- come on, that's not true.
Well if the assertion that any of bay's 8 movies haven't had a story at their core can be thrown all about, the nature of the summer action film vs summer story film needs to be explored. I've simply accused Nolan of doing (perhaps to a lesser degree) some of the very same things Bay does.
A car on a roof is sensational cinema at it's best. The scene could have gone a lot of different ways but the "tank is flying on roof tops." As one character in the film mentions in bewilderment. As if next he's about to say, "I must be in a silly michael bay movie."
Second, you're establishing another false dichotomy between storytelling and entertaining: I made that distinction in how I view Nolan and Bay's film-making styles, but that does not mean that they are polar opposites and you can only achieve the one by sacrificing the other. Sure, criticize Nolan's execution (and I do: the Inception skiing scene leaves a lot to be desired) but to say that his action scenes are unnecessary for his storytelling is a bit much. Unnecessary in that context is "remove this scene from the movie and it won't change the impact of the scene that comes right after"; I would disagree with the examples you provided. Something would be changed. Something would be lost.
The thing you're missing is that their styles aren't being measured on the same material. Would Bay turn Bruce Waynes meeting with his superiors into Shia's 5 minute meeting with Malkovich? This is the (traditional and celebrated)approach with comedy. Bay's "style" and Nolans style is similar when the material is similar along with their approach to a few other things. The Rock in many ways warrants a comparison to The Batman films. Not Shia and the aliens in the toy commercial. In that comparison I see a lot of similarities. Right down the the over the top and needlessly sensational car chase.
Yes when bay makes comedies, then in true comedy fashion entire scenes exist as gags and do not directly affect the following scenes. No argument there. Is that bays style, well that depends. I assume you're heard of David Gordan Green? Brilliant filmmaker and on again off again stoner comedy guy. What's his style I wonder.
What I am not willing to accept assertions that Nolan and Bay are similar film-makers, simply because they can both get the studios to approve of their astronomical budgets.
That would be a straw man. I simply said they aren't as different as many would believe and not for the simple reason you think I said.
Oh, now Michael Bay's misogyny is a "misconception"? And "anti gay bs"? No, I'm sorry: I can't allow that. I can't allow that at all. James Bond has nothing to do with it. The blatant fanservice of Your Highness has nothing to do with it. Michael Bay being a Jew has nothing to do with it. His treatment of women, on and off camera, has everything to do with it, and your dismissive assertion that his female characters are "empowered" is not good enough an excuse, for Bay or for any other director. It just so happens he's the one we're talking about right now.
I see, so you're talking about him as person? My mistake, I really have no opinion on this seeing as how I don't know the man personally. My bad. On camera? Have you seen the Crank films?
good luck with your exams though.