Revenge of the Fallen Is it pointless to hope for a better script than the first movie?

[Marvin]

The problem some people have with Bay ultimately(and I'm guessing) is that in the genre of making fun,'traditional' summer blockbusters he's the most successful in this day and age and yet as movie fans I can imagine that some compare him to the past directors who once ruled that season with films that were meant to be nothing more than fun (Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis before his love of technology ran away with him etc) and find him lacking.

ur right about Zemeckis
thing is those dudes make movies that were kid friendly
this was bays first(as far as intentions)

so it's at this point that the comparisons can start...

Those filmmakers at their best gave us films that weren't exactly meant to be deep yet we got CHARACTERS (not stereotypes) we, the audience, could give a damn about. The original script for PEARL HARBOUR, as an example, was said to be much better than what ended up onscreen because Bay wanted it to be more action-oriented.

read 80% of the reviews on PH and you'll see a consensus that the action(bombing) is the only good part of the movie

cause the story(that bay wrote) was weak and kinda contrived.

my theory tried and tested

lame and bad movie on paper...bay's involvement being it's saving grace.

Imagine the Michael Bay versions of JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, TERMINATOR 2etc and, to an extent, even though I don't think TF has ever really had material worthy of non-fanboys taking it seriously, I do see why his style (memorably spoofed in TEAM AMERICA) grates on some.

if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

funny enough berg's new indy just proved how dated that approach to cinema really is.

bay's back to the future might actually be interesting
but only if they used Shia lol

Next week we could possibly see not one but two genre based summer blockbusters (THE DARK KNIGHT, WALL-E) nominated for the top prize. I've no problem with a director who doesn't have the lofty intentions a Chris Nolan or Andrew Stanton had but I suppose at times it does put things into perspective.

Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did

nolan and bay are very different yes
the script for TF and the script for TDK are very different too

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, the thing is some of the films I mentioned above didn't 'dumb down' their characters for the sake of what they thought a general audience would accept.

they didn't dumb anything down for that intent

in Badboys 1 the actress is a call girl that get's called to the wrong place at the wrong time(lol)
sorry if bay didn't cast Margot Kidder, but some things even bay movies makes sense

in part two the girl was a strong black FBI woman
I don't see anyone knocking Michael Mans miami vice work for it's content inspired bimbos

not sure what you found insulting about the nurse in pear harbour..

The island about about a girl cloned for a model...i believe the clones were supposed to act like kids too?
then again maybe bay is just pretending it makes sense so he can cast hot ppl.

For example contrast the love interests/women of some of these aformentioned films and others of summers gone by (Brody's wife in JAWS, Leia in STAR WARS, Margot Kidder's Lois Lane, Karen Allen in RAIDERS, the original and best Sarah Connor in T1/2) or even now on occasion(Maggie G in TDK) and put them beside the glamour models/borderline porn-star lookalikes in Bay's work and there on one crucial level you can see why 'fun' divested of any sense of character reality (the importance of people the WHOLE audience can relate to or project themselves upon) just seems genuinely hollow.

sorry if the actresses in bays movies are attractive
that's hollywood not bay

look at the films nominated for best pic this year...look at all the films nomiated for anything

even that bot from Walle is sleek

leading ladies(and leading males) work that way, the audience has to desire them too

this is no more evident than in curious case of brad pit, once he is young and the girl desires the bad place out of him...it kinda helps the film that he really is good looking

if cinderella walks down the stairs and she looks like judy dench it's just not the same.

to bring it all back to this forum tho, Sam likes the hot girl from school...that's very normal in high school
megan fox being cast serves a purpose.

It's not neccesarily a better script people should be hoping/wishing for. It's a successful director/storyteller who doesn't think in cliche when constructing 'meaningless' films.

nah, it's actually a better script

it all starts there.

just look at the Rock.

I'm sorry but i really don't think Ron howards Transformer would be this buzz worthy or this good!

 

[Marvin]

Well I wouldn't say that. Ask anyone what they like about Transformers, I guarantee the majority would say "Ahh man, we got transforming robots beating the crap out of each other!!" I doubt anyone would say anything about any of the humans. Apart from Megan Fox obviously.

funny Shia's name seems to come up in a positive light in a lot of reviews
he even seems to have a career now, a bigger career then optimus prime even

 

[Marvin]

Yea that's pretty much how I feel.

Transformers doesn't need to be a lofty, deeply meaningful film, of course not. But it wouldn't hurt to make the characters believable and not just stupid stereotypes.

I take it your not a fan of the G1 characterizations then

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

he tried to add a teen love story? dads will be dads when it comes to their little girls huh

it's called summer time, what better for the summer audience to relate to..

not sure where you get the he tried to add tho?

The point is he failed at making the characters relatable.

Barlly any of the interactions rang true.

he would have failed if he tried to treat the material seriously...but instead he succeeded in making one of the biggest funnest blockbusters

A great blockbuster with no substance or characterization....sounds like his TF film.


And that proves my point....great action and very little to nothing else.

...ahem again just like something about mary fails in telling a good deep love story but succeeds in...etc

But Something about mary also delieverd on the characters.

again
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/armageddon-script-screenplay.html

bay take this **** and makes it entertaining

it's all there on paper
1."Bay tried to add a "tear jerker" and a "teen love story""
2."The father that cared to much for his daughter"
3."administrator who always wanted to be the pilot"
4."the other father who never"
5. etc

and unless anyone has seen bay's WGA membership card...(he doesn't have one)

it's time the truth is finally accepted
everything "you" hate is there before bay even pick up a camera

all he does is make it look golden aka...annoying

Bruckheimer wants to make a film, he wants it to be told a certain way, and he wants it to make this much money

...
then again Pirates was such a gem of story telling...maybe it is just bay.

it's called a Producer

And what point are you trying to make???

Wether its in the script or not is irrelivent to wether Bay failed to bring it to the film.

I'm not claiming that Bay added any of those aspects to the script....I'm saying that Bay failed to make it work on film.

The parts of the story were fine and a good idea but they were delivered incorrectly.....and thats Bays failure.

I do find myself agreeing with you there

may have being the operative word
and with JB producing..I would have loved to see them try.

Thats an other problem.

But truth be told to many bad films are made because of those kinds of problems.

Some directors should just put their foots down already.

now go read the pearl harbour script...
(that bay wrote)

I read some of it once

people talk of story telling this and that...it kinda starts with a story
and bay never has that on his side.

Again his fault.

If you cant right a good script hirer a good writter to do it for you.

unlike Lean and Kubrick who always ran to the best novels to literally translate.

Bays made 6 fun movies

And little else.

His movies are like fun rides at 6 flags.....but you soon forget them.

Now imagin if those fun rides were "Great Rides" that you never forget.

A different director may have been able to make "6 Great Movies" where Bay only made "6 Fun Movies"

not if it's not there in the script
then actors can perform till the cows come home...

If it aint in the script....call for a re-write.Dont work with the crap your handed.

actually the atmosphere was visually amazing,

Not in my eyes.

the realism did fail tho, especially with the giant R sequence

Agreed

again comparing a good script or books in these cases, to the summer scripts bay shoots is arguing my case for me

Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.

mine either but it does for other people

it was his first movie away from JB and it had substance through and through
it wasn't about buddy cops and crystal meth
it was about humans growing life to replace their body parts like car parts
and the general concept then of what is a life of value...the clones show us with their experiences

And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.

i personally don't fancy the film but, for the hypocrites here who praise the original G1 saturday morning toy commercial for it's "substance" the Island is a diamond in the rough
and thus they veto'd their power to say anything negative about it.

Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.

Anyone who starts talking about GIjoe not being as good as Saving Private Ryan story and depth wise really needs to take a chill pill

I can agree with that.

I'm just hopeing that we see some real "character" and "personalty" in the characters.

And truth be told thats all I wanted to see in Bays TF films.

that's where you and alot of fan boys are getting it wrong
if you really look at optimus(or anyone (apart from megatron)) mathematically it's all there (being a maya student, i know all about how these programs glitch)

it's all there, it's even been stated that the truck design had to be changed to make up for the mass

even when it's drawn it makes sense in ways the blockies don't
http://fc21.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/198/3/4/transformers_Movie__Bumblebee_by_Eldelgado.jpg

that beautiful final shot of Optimus on near the tree during magic hour really let the audience take in the fact that all the sprockets and horns, windshield wipers and windows, there all there

sure because unlike the cartoon it's all there it makes for a busy design but the reward is an audience that has no doubts about what their seeing the originals look funky(blocky) because they were designed for animation
this is designed for (computer animation) real life.

secondly the fact that the audience witness the cars unfolding adds to the illusion

And your missing my point.

I can understand some changes need to be made but you cant tell me that even with those changes that were necessary that some things couldnt have been done to make the CGI characters a bit more familuar.

Movies like Ironman also had to make changes to the character designs to account for mass and believeability.

But they were determined to still keep it familaur.

even the sound design pisses fans off cause it's not that stupid modem sound..

That didnt piss me off.

I was happy with the few times they used the classic sound.

But I didnt expect him to use it at all nor would it have pissed me off if he hadnt used it at all.

He was trying to make them seem real and that classic transforming sound, as much as I like it, just doent sound realilistic and would have hurt the film if he used it all the time.

if the designs were more in liking to the original

I'll stop you right there because I'm not looking for more of a G1 feel but something down the middle between the the films designs and the designs of G1 would have served the movie much better.

Lastly bay's powerhouse photography just brought it all together

That Bay does do well.

the designs really made this movie and thats the one thing that's the biggest shame off all
cause some dude at ILM really hit the nail on the head with his ideas and work and it's **** on every day.

With that I disagree.

The designs could have been better.

pointing out the mistakes wouldn't get us anywhere

True enough

i mean technically Raptors have feathers...

Which wasnt proven when the film was made.

The first “Jurassic Park” film was released in 1993 and the last in 2001.

It wasnt till September 2007,that paleontologist found quill knobs on the forearm of a Velociraptor fossil.

These "knobs" show where feathers anchor, and fact that they were found on a Velociraptor fossil indicated it too had feathers.

Granted it was a theroy before then but it was not a fact.

it's not just wonderfully cgi creatures, it's the functional transforming that really sells it.

And again better designs that were a bit more fimiluar would have sold it better.

peace

And long life

unitil Cameron returns

I would have liked to see him helm the TF movies.

if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

I dont agree.

Particular with Jaws and Back to the future.

They may have looked better under Bay but the movies them selfs would have suffered from the same pit falls that many of Bays films do.

He just doent know how to bring any characterization to his films.

And its not just the scripts,....its his directing style.

 

[JP]

The script wasn't THAT bad.

It was worse.

 

[Dotten]

Alongside Into The Wild the script was good enough to give me the two best movies of 2007.

I holde Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron. I don't expect a life-altering experience like those guys have given me, but he is the one who gives med the most fun. He's an expert at that field, although I'm no fan of the Bad Boys flicks. But he nailed it with The Rock, Armageddon and Transformers.

But then again, I'm no cynic. I find it rather pathetic when people go all crazy about someone loving a movie they hate. Some are film enthusiasts, other are film cynics. It's fine to have a different in opinion and discussing that in a civil matter, but those roaming The Internet just trying to find a Bay/Transformers-fan they can "fight" I really do pitty. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, It's just a general observation about The Internet.

 

[Avangarde]

This thread has turned into a real gem, it's good to see some thought provoking posts in the TF Board once again, well at least more thought provoking then the first film.

 

[Bayless]

Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did

agreed. i hate to say it but everything in WallE is wonderfully brilliant and hit me harder about how we live than anything. but the later CGIed fat people being attacked by the ship? uh...

still good filming

 

[baerrtt]

ur right about Zemeckis
thing is those dudes make movies that were kid friendly
this was bays first(as far as intentions)

so it's at this point that the comparisons can start...


read 80% of the reviews on PH and you'll see a consensus that the action(bombing) is the only good part of the movie

cause the story(that bay wrote) was weak and kinda contrived.

my theory tried and tested

lame and bad movie on paper...bay's involvement being it's saving grace.



if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

funny enough berg's new indy just proved how dated that approach to cinema really is.

bay's back to the future might actually be interesting
but only if they used Shia lol



Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did

nolan and bay are very different yes
the script for TF and the script for TDK are very different too

I'm curious are you that much of a Bay fan (no problem that you are)that you REALLY believe that JAWS, RAIDERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE etc would have turned out(aside from looking 'better') the exact same ways if Bay was directing any of them?

A good/great director must first and foremost be a good storyteller irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' an actual script is(James Cameron's abilities as a scriptwriter are, imo, serviceable at best and yet his storytelling is what makes audiences empathise with his characters).

Bay's inability (once again imo) to care for a proper story is why I get the impression that a 'good' script in his hands would be mangled beyond belief.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

As I've said before, Bay is a GREAT action director IMO. He just has this knack of getting the shots right for these sequences, and of course, he loves his explosions.

But as i've got older, I want more than that. I'm not really amazed by stunning CGI and explosions on there own anymore. It just seems so, I dunno, shallow? I'm not asking for TDK style deep, meaningful characterization. But when the marines were in that helicopter and I saw that hispanic soldier, I knew, I just knew that he would be highly religious and have the ol rosemary beads n that. That may not bother some people, but it really bothers me. It's like Bay actually sat there and thought. "I know, for the marines we'll have a heroic white guy who has a new born daughter he's never seen, a loud mouth black guy and a religious hispanic guy!!" It just stinks of laziness and lack of imagination. If Bay thinks that's characterization then well, he is a idiot.

And Jon Voights character, obviously a important government official. Why the bad place would he be left with civilians when all bad place is breaking lose? It's like realism was completely sacrificed to make a another action scene. Obviously these films aren't completely realistic, but when a government official is left to fend for himself with civilians I just can't suspend my disbelief.

Saying all that, Turturro's character was brilliant! But that's mainly down to him.

 

[baerrtt]

As I've said before, Bay is a GREAT action director IMO. He just has this knack of getting the shots right for these sequences, and of course, he loves his explosions.

But as i've got older, I want more than that. I'm not really amazed by stunning CGI and explosions on there own anymore. It just seems so, I dunno, shallow? I'm not asking for TDK style deep, meaningful characterization. But when the marines were in that helicopter and I saw that hispanic soldier, I knew, I just knew that he would be highly religious and have the ol rosemary beads n that. That may not bother some people, but it really bothers me. It's like Bay actually sat there and thought. "I know, for the marines we'll have a heroic white guy who has a new born daughter he's never seen, a loud mouth black guy and a religious hispanic guy!!" It just stinks of laziness and lack of imagination. If Bay thinks that's characterization then well, he is a idiot.

And Jon Voights character, obviously a important government official. Why the bad place would he be left with civilians when all bad place is breaking lose? It's like realism was completely sacrificed to make a another action scene. Obviously these films aren't completely realistic, but when a government official is left to fend for himself with civilians I just can't suspend my disbelief.

Saying all that, Turturro's character was brilliant! But that's mainly down to him.

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

 

[Marvin]

The point is he failed at making the characters relatable.

Barlly any of the interactions rang true.

that's subjective, because as much as it's criticized we'd have to be self centered to think there aren't many that were moved by armageddon...
film of any sort is art and it always moves

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

my point was the approach wasn't bad...and I'm glad it wasn't apollo 13...so are the many 16 year old chicks lol

A great blockbuster with no substance or characterization....sounds like his TF film.

And that proves my point....great action and very little to nothing else.

But Something about mary also delieverd on the characters.

just like i said above, it's all subjective...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

but it still moved people

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that

And what point are you trying to make???

Wether its in the script or not is irrelivent to wether Bay failed to bring it to the film.

I'm not claiming that Bay added any of those aspects to the script....I'm saying that Bay failed to make it work on film.

The parts of the story were fine and a good idea but they were delivered incorrectly.....and thats Bays failure.

well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film
and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper, if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked

Thats an other problem.

But truth be told to many bad films are made because of those kinds of problems.

Some directors should just put their foots down already.

doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB

Again his fault.

If you cant right a good script hirer a good writter to do it for you.

doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)

And little else.

His movies are like fun rides at 6 flags.....but you soon forget them.

Now imagin if those fun rides were "Great Rides" that you never forget.

but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

they love it for being a ride...ppl can't do that with bay

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience

A different director may have been able to make "6 Great Movies" where Bay only made "6 Fun Movies"

not if their intent was to make them fun movies
the farely bros for example...

spielberg has made like 50 movies(bad guess)
some of the have been shindlers list some just fun for the summer(when compared to that)

how many?
more then 6

when bay makes 50 movies we'll look back at his 6 fun ones and be like...i liked the fun in them

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

when he makes 50 films more then 6 will be fun ones

bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career

If it aint in the script....call for a re-write.Dont work with the crap your handed.

again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates




Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.



And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.



Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.

And your missing my point.

I can understand some changes need to be made but you cant tell me that even with those changes that were necessary that some things couldnt have been done to make the CGI characters a bit more familuar.

Movies like Ironman also had to make changes to the character designs to account for mass and believeability.

But they were determined to still keep it familaur.

artists sarted drawing ironman functionally at some point

but if all he had were his bendy metal armour of the 60's then a smart director would have changed that too

look at the new cartoon the bots look very different but just enough(usually in the face) to keep them familiar

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated

That didnt piss me off.

I was happy with the few times they used the classic sound.

But I didnt expect him to use it at all nor would it have pissed me off if he hadnt used it at all.


He was trying to make them seem real and that classic transforming sound, as much as I like it, just doent sound realilistic and would have hurt the film if he used it all the time.

the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are

I'll stop you right there because I'm not looking for more of a G1 feel but something down the middle between the the films designs and the designs of G1 would have served the movie much better.

that could be argued, better with the fans and artists at ilm what worked on it...but the fact is it could be argued and not just pointless brought up by fan boys all the gosh darn time.

That Bay does do well.

With that I disagree.

The designs could have been better.

same goes for everyfilm

True enough

And again better designs that were a bit more fimiluar would have sold it better.

perhaps

And long life

I would have liked to see him helm the TF movies.

i would like to see cameron do every movie

I dont agree.

Particular with Jaws and Back to the future.

They may have looked better under Bay but the movies them selfs would have suffered from the same pit falls that many of Bays films do.

because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion

He just doent know how to bring any characterization to his films.

he hasn't shot a script with it present

And its not just the scripts,....its his directing style.

starts with scripts

look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ash
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

Great post That pretty much sums up how I feel about Teh Bay in general.

 

[baerrtt]

that's subjective, because as much as it's criticized we'd have to be self centered to think there aren't many that were moved by armageddon...
film of any sort is art and it always moves

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

my point was the approach wasn't bad...and I'm glad it wasn't apollo 13...so are the many 16 year old chicks lol




just like i said above, it's all subjective...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

but it still moved people

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that



well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film
and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper, if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked







doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB




doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)



but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

they love it for being a ride...ppl can't do that with bay

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience



not if their intent was to make them fun movies
the farely bros for example...

spielberg has made like 50 movies(bad guess)
some of the have been shindlers list some just fun for the summer(when compared to that)

how many?
more then 6

when bay makes 50 movies we'll look back at his 6 fun ones and be like...i liked the fun in them

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

when he makes 50 films more then 6 will be fun ones

bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career



again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates




Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.



And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.



Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.




artists sarted drawing ironman functionally at some point

but if all he had were his bendy metal armour of the 60's then a smart director would have changed that too

look at the new cartoon the bots look very different but just enough(usually in the face) to keep them familiar

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated




the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are



that could be argued, better with the fans and artists at ilm what worked on it...but the fact is it could be argued and not just pointless brought up by fan boys all the gosh darn time.

That Bay does do well.




same goes for everyfilm







perhaps

And long life



i would like to see cameron do every movie



because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion


he hasn't shot a script with it present



starts with scripts

look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ash
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

Bay hired script doctors on PEARL HARBOUR to retool it with more action sequences leading to it's original screenwriter Randal Wallace quitting the production(even though he's the only writer with a credit).

Irrespective of whether or not Wallace's characterisation was good(and I'll admit I don't rate him as a writer) attempting to 'fix' a script by chucking in more action sequences is the kind of stuff that gets deservedly parodied in films/tv shows because it shows a complete lack of creativity. You're telling me that, conceptually at least, THE ISLAND comes without any opportunities for characterisation?

Bay has an idea of what a summer blockbuster should be and 'characters' need not apply.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think Bay's real problem is that he takes the word "blockbuster" too literally.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

that's subjective,

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think.

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.

my point was the approach wasn't bad

The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.

just like i said above, it's all subjective

And I can repeat what I said above as well.

...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that

Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.

well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film

ish???

and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

And it wasnt the concept it was Bays execution of those scenes.

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper,

Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.

if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked

Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.

doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB

I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.

doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)

I dont see the point your trying to make here.

I have no problem with films that are written for kids.

but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience

I know many that do.

not if their intent was to make them fun movies

Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

I liked that film

bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career

I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.

again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates

It doesnt have to be.



You quoted me but didnt reply to any of it here

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated

You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.

the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are

I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.

that could be argued,

Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.

same goes for everyfilm

Thats true enough.

i would like to see cameron do every movie

I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat

because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion

They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.

he hasn't shot a script with it present

Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.

starts with scripts

And ends with director.

Its the directors job to make lemons into lemon-aid.

look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ash
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

And Camron could have done better even with that script.

Again lemons into lemon-aid.

 

[baerrtt]

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think.



Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.



The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.



And I can repeat what I said above as well.



Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.



Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.



ish???



And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.



Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

And it wasnt the concept it was Bays execution of those scenes.



Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.



Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.



I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.



I dont see the point your trying to make here.

I have no problem with films that are written for kids.



They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.



I know many that do.



Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"



I liked that film



I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.



It doesnt have to be.




You quoted me but didnt reply to any of it here



You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.



I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.



Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.



Thats true enough.



I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat



They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.



Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.



And ends with director.

Its the directors job to make lemons into lemon-aid.




And Camron could have done better even with that script.

Again lemons into lemon-aid.

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Domo arigato

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

Thanks

 

[The Lizard]

I holde Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron.

I'm still waiting for the ancient Gods of Cinema to open up the clouds and smite you with holy lightning for this blasphemy.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

^

 

[Avangarde]

I hold Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron. I don't expect a life-altering experience like those guys have given me, but he is the one who gives me the most fun. He's an expert at that field, although I'm no fan of the Bad Boys flicks. But he nailed it with The Rock, Armageddon and Transformers.

If you're not going to take this seriously then what good are you for?

 

[Marvin]

I'm curious are you that much of a Bay fan (no problem that you are)that you REALLY believe that JAWS, RAIDERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE etc would have turned out(aside from looking 'better') the exact same ways if Bay was directing any of them?

nope, but they would have the exact same substance, for directors shoot scripts..

the lack of substance in bay flims is the lack of substance in bay scripts

as for the experience i'd say they would have a lot more energy(which said films tried to have at times)

like i said Raiders not included

A good/great director must first and foremost be a good storyteller irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' an actual script is(James Cameron's abilities as a scriptwriter are, imo, serviceable at best and yet his storytelling is what makes audiences empathise with his characters).

Bay's inability (once again imo) to care for a proper story is why I get the impression that a 'good' script in his hands would be mangled beyond belief.

so you assume the director who's shot (his own) scripts with alot to them is good(and is good at bringing the good out of....the good)

and the director who's shot scripts with a little to them is bad(at pulling substance out of thin air)

seems like an obvious disadvantage

an no I "that much" of a bay fan, i appreciate his work...
in any discussion I really am bothered by some or anyone being mis represented

and plus i have a soft spot for music vid directors.

 

[Dotten]

I'm still waiting for the ancient Gods of Cinema to open up the clouds and smite you with holy lightning for this blasphemy.

Hehe, maybe. Like I said, Bay will never give me a life altering experience like the maestros I mentioned (I also love Chaplin, Eastwood, Hitchcock, Lynch and Nolan), but no one gives me more fun at the big screen then Bay. Maybe except for Spielberg.

And I'm often stamped as the "film elitist" because of my love for film auteur. I watch more black and white these days then color. I doubt there are many at my age (29) or younger who have seen more films.

The Bay-hate seems more based on political bias then anything else, but that's just my opinion. I have no problem with what people look upon as bad directing from Bay, but from my point of view those things make the film better not worse. Bays stile is not good for drama or "action grounden in reality" (god I hate that worn out "grounded in reality"), but he's the best at what he does. Transformers was great, I absolutely loved it. And I was one who read the script before and complained (I think I did it on these boards come to think of it).

But Bay prooved me wrong. I felt like an 8-year old again and I thank him for that. I hope I can take a trip back to that in the sequel.

If you're not going to take this seriously then what good are you for?

I am taking this seriously. Excuse me for having another opinion then you, I'm not fond of the sheep-mentality.

This is a normative discussion, not a descriptive. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions. So please show some tolerance and peace out

 

[Marvin]

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

apart from antz i've avoided woody allen movies so i'm in the dark, you'd have to point me out something has said when confronted by giant alien robots(the ones threatening his life..or the ones that swear to protect him and be his pals)
that was wooden-esque

the human character within logic, is not only completely unpredictable, but can respond to any situation any different way

bruce wayne responds one way, john conner another

it's how you respond to your environment that = characterization

marty mc fly acted realistically?
i'm sorry but if i found out i was back in time I would crawl in fetal position
if i learnt i was trapped i would craw into fetal position
playing the rock song infront of everyone...i'd probably lay low
the list goes on

but for some marty was just doing the normal thing, I found his actions to be outlandish
then again, i'm a brother

Sam and his response to his car, leaving by it's self
his response to be being captured
his response to it losing it's legs

if you think they were or weren't realistic, it's subjective and i won't fault you for that, but for everyone else to fault the people who do think it realistic...
I find odd..but common place

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Ironically enough it's often said that the robots had the 2 dimensionality of cartoon characters
and i tend to agree, apart from the lead bots, they were very 2D

like pretty much all the characters in the roger rabbit film

it's the human characterization and the bots that had focus that i champion.

sorry but as an adult I don't feel for any of the Roger Rabbit characters in that movie...(compare any of those characters to the work of brad birds characters in The Incredibles or disney's lion king)

sams affection for his car and his cars protectiveness of him delves way deeper then bob hopkins and that rabbit.
sorry but it's true

bay actually trumps bob this time.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

the story of a boy and his car

when compared to the ilk of the transporter three...that's plenty.