• Rings of Power

    Fantasy TV is now The Lord of the Rings!

  • We're moving

    Heroes are moving to the Movies sections!

Age of Extinction Transformers 4 USER REVIEW THREAD

You don't exactly quit the military. :funny: I feel like Lennox is the easiest to explain away. He is probably just stationed elsewhere and not part of the black ops team hunting the Autobots

Or they could have tried forcing him 2 be part of that team since he knew the Autobots & he escaped & took his wife & kid & went into hiding. As did the rest of his team.Or hes the only surviving member of his team. That the government killed trying 2 get info on the Autobots. They can go plenty of different places with Lennox & his team as well in the future & I dont see Lennox & co sitting by while their friends get hunted like that. The only way I see a guy like Lennox not helping the Autobots. Is if say the Government threatened his wife & kid & as I said they simply go into hiding & he stays out of things 2 protect them. Maybe the missing Autobots are out there protecting a select few of their human friends such as Lennox etc. But this is Michael Bay so we will probably never know
 
Last edited:
Marvin,
I stopped reading your post when you began to defend the shots of Megan Fox changing into the white dress. The director himself said that was intended for 14 year old boys to gawk at; how could you seriously try and pull a story point out of that? What more do you need, how much clearer does it have to be?
And the IM2 scene could be comparable, but the film isn't littered with shots like that. If it was, then maybe you'd have a case.
Your logic is that when a woman is shown in just a bra, it's automatically the equivalent of when Bay does a long slow pan up a woman's leg and makes juvenile jokes about an underage girl being good at hand jobs.
As we've been saying: nothing is comparable to Bay's film.
I assumed you stopped reading my posts long before that tbh.

How could I pull out a story point out of that? Probably cause I watched the film and surmised one. This is pretty much the problem here; the thought for analysis stops when when is distracted by the titillation or even admitted titillation present from bay. It's a dvd commentary. It's like if a director said something(say a giant tree falling down) was to be the huge money shot that got people to the theater. He says this on the dvd commentary in which alot of the point is to speak to what's interesting about what's on screen, and not some video analysis eassy. Does that mean because of that admission that the scene itself which very much is the big money shot in all the trailers that no doubt get's people(young boys even)there and could easily be shot differently no longer serves as a story point worth analysing on our own? Him saying it was anything doesn't change ones ability to read a story. This is very much the case with the Terminator commentaries, Cameron isn't always talking about the story points each scene serves(knife through milk carton/naked Arnold) but rather sometimes, why it’s a 'great shot' and who it might appeal to. Dance movies even more so. It's like you are looking for a reason to shut your brain off and the minute you find the excuse the game is over. Why she changed into a white dress is pretty stated, what did it serve the story was the question and I'm certain I answered it soundly. As for why it was shot that way is no different than why they shot widow in the car with her boobs hanging out(hollywood) other than the fact that the underwear was far harder to see. To come down on one and not the other, above and beyond proves my point. Now we are getting into the game of, 'well I don't see it allll over ironman'. Right.... And as if that changes what it is we are actually comparing. I think it boils down to this: If bay directed the same sequence(that of changing in the back seat) and was asked on the commentary what was it's purpose, he's have grounds to answer the question differently right?

The bay film makes an innuendo about juvenile(though seemingly legal) sex. If you want to get hyperbolic about how disturbing this is(in general) be my guest but I would only imagine you don't watch teen drama's on tv for they are littered with alot more of such things and do so with characters playing younger than seen here, and I see far less hyperbolic outrage there. Again from Teen Wolf to Vampire Diaries, Buffy,teen movies that involve teen vampires etc. Hardly the first time, nor the 'worst time', in film or tv. Of course, a HUGE make or break deal here(the director is in a class all his own) but else where....as speaks to my point. I suppose this is the part where we default back to personal tastes and speaking for ones self, making all this back and forth pointless...
But hey, it's not about the presence of it, it's the 'fact' that the quantity is incessant..

As for my logic, I never said that if one shot that contains such and such bra, it’s 'automatically equivalent' to another shot that contains some other part of a womans body and a different shooting style. That's the strawman at work. When I compare shots to be equivalent it's as I did above with the costume changes. You know the one that keeps being brought up and damned in one film(white dress) yet the other has to be brought up by myself(for it's pretty equivalent minus the story points). You suggested that if IM was littered with it than maybe my comparison of their equivalency perpetrated in both scenes and thus both movies, would have a case? I think this is why we are going around in circles, when equivalency is found and stated…it will never be enough thus why I initially asked what the point of providing examples from the marvel films would serve for with each equivalent point proven, one ‘wouldn’t have a case because of supposed quantity. As for the shot of the girls legs, when it comes to what was actually shown compared to other films..leg's, feet, a glimpse of a bikini behind, a low angle...? As if one as never watched womens vollyball on tv or live. What exactly is shown? If it’s about the style of camera, bay has shot men’s bodies the same way(badboys/pain and gain..).
Your issue isn't that you have something against the portrayal of women in film(bay films that is), It's that you have an issue with the perceived amount of such a thing as you see it in a bay film. Which I find falls into a certain level of hypocrisy on principle but is also conveniently subjective. I suppose this is the part about differing tastes. Which as I've said from the start is all well and good, until it goes beyond that, and people start speaking as to the general truths of the situation. 'One film is, one film isn't' vs 'Both films are but one isn't for me'.

The going premise here is the double standard and selective outrage that has been occurring as it pertains to ‘hollywood’ movies. Now as interesting as it has been to see the subjective up and down on womanization in these marvel films. That hardly addresses the issue. You yourself stated that the ‘bay level of what not’ is all it’s own and soley deserving of the (selective) outrage for you suggest there are no other pg 13 franchises that rival it in doing what it does(how this all actually started). This is where I point you in the direction of the pg-13 rated fast/furious series and the pg13(and PG) rated Bond(the names alone and the majority of it's female intro's) series…franchises rather as Hollywood films that do this very thing if not more so yet receive none or far more negligible levels of outrage, especially on this forum. That is, you walk into those threads and you don’t see fanboy after fanboy going on about how the women are treated or how hurt, disgusted or offended they themselves are. You won’t read reviews for these films in which critics go off about…I digress. I personally describe this as not liking a movie and playing the righteous card to damn it even further. For who can argue against sexism after all.
[YT]7Ua9QJOlM7c[/YT]Video should be titled: Twice the depravity, none of the outrage.

In conclusion, what is present in these bay films is hardly new nor it is exclusive or even 'at it’s most', in relation to the typical Hollywood output depending on the audience. The real difference lies in selective outrage any and all of his films receive. Is this not precisely the double standard as it has been described or am I missing something? And that’s only on the issue of women/sex(it happens with other issues as well).

As for how pointless this all seems, you’re right, it does perhaps seem that way. Only I personally shy away from the tactic of declaring as much in an attempt to belittle the arguments of the opposition in such a way…
 
1. You continued to compare to IM anyway. Mine as well spend that time backing up your claims. If not it's wasted time.

2. You are clearly assuming things here. I, more anyone else for that matter, claimed that wolf of Wall Street got a free pass. You just assume the people who dislike how bay handles woman characters are ok with how that movie played out. Since you brought it up however, I will tell you my personal opinion and comparison. Obviously the wolf of Wall Street went further than tf. It's rated R. Even though some of that movie I found enjoyable I can honestly say I will never watch the movie again, and primarily because of how over sexualised it is and how little it I handed the story. Transformers, while those scenes pointed out do annoy me, I can still watch with friends as back ground noise.

3. It's find if you interpreted a story point out of the bike scene. However bay never mentioned it was intended as a story point. You are imagining that quote. He said the 14 year old boys who watched the first one would be expecting and wanting that kind of eye candy, so he decided to include a scene early on in the movie that would give them exactly what he felt they wanted. You can even see him direct fox to lift up her dress a little. Look it up.

4. Megan Fox's filmography is due to her being type cast from her role in transformers. She rose to fame as a sex symbol and that's where she is stuck, and has failed to escape. Bringing up her career actually helps validate my point.

5. The specific quote I mentioned was made by Shia. (I believe her boyfriend at the time) looking up quotes from her (which I am already aware of) doesn't actually contradict anything he said.

6. I don't watch Jennifer Anniston movies, so your comparisons, while they may apply to SPECIFIC people, do not apply to me. At all.

7. Your scenerios don't really apply to anyone on this thread. It's clear you are either assuming they do without reason (or possibly your arguments are based on comments people outside these boards have made) or you're making up your points as you go. Either way, they don't carry much weight.

8. Everyone has a line. Some people tolerate more than others. You clearly are one of the people who tolerate how Hollywood sexualises women more than the some of the other posters on this thread. For other people, Michael bay crosses a line that has to do with personal taste. I have yet to see one person on this thread who claims the way Michael bay displays women poorly praise another director or film that has a similar aproach to women. Other people with different standards may tolerate things worse than what bay does, but you are lumping a lot of people together wether you realize it or not.

9. (Going along with my last point) If one person has views that differ from another persons views neither individual a hypocrite. In the same way when a group of people have different individual standards there is no hypocrocy at large. You are missing the forest for the trees.

1)I continued to compare it in passing, pushing to move on to greater point rather than to fully invest in a diatribe focused on Ironman/Marvel films that would included video(I’m not about to post a long marvel video after the warning, sorry) reference as well as video analysis and a few other things. What’s more, the point was already made…and here I am about to do it again if not for myself stopping myself, again. I suppose this is another waste of time if you will.

2)Never said you said Wolf got a free pass. I(saying it again) implied if you want to see women, on film, excessively exploited to the degree you are insinuating Bay has done, I recommend that film. Watch them side by side like that RedLetter video to drive the point further, compare the number of bare breasts on screen if that helps. I then asked if one thought he could still argue that bay is actually doing something worse or even at that level. The way people talk about bay you would think it’s at that level. I used that film as a measuring bar for perspective… This has nothing to do with giving wall street a free pass. Where did I say that? This is what I see happening here, I say something about perspective and it’s being turned into; I’m suggesting Wolf of freaking Wall Street get’s a free pass. My ‘double standard’ points pertain to other films.

3)Not sure how many ‘dvd commentaries’ you have seen but often times(especially with lighter films) the people talking aren’t providing some video essay and story analysis. When Tyresse is speaking he’s not always talking about his character motivation as he lay on the street dying but rather how hot that day was how many sit ups he did before the role and why he did them and the ‘ladies’…This is precisely why I said, him commenting on all that the scene yields shouldn’t debunk one’s ability to analyze the story into itself. I can only imagine what Mel Gibson has to say about the many shots of heads being caved during the dvd commentary of his films, safe to say not all of his comments will pertain to the story point in service, and one or two may pertain to the gore, why captures so much of it and who it may actually appeal to. Bay himself often spends most of his time talking about the technical jargon of a frame or how cool a shot was vs what it contributes to the story(for example), On A DVD commentary to a summer film of his. And sorry, I can’t actually look it up, not sure where I would find it.

4&5)The part where you bring up how her choices in filmography are bay’s fault…is pretty lame. Really speaks to what’s going on here imo(Bay as some universal solvent of blame). What’s funny is that you were earlier talking about how she herself walked away from a lucrative film deal(TF) because of how she was exploited for her looks, and then when evidence of her not walking away on films that do far worse, you pull out the… “bay’s fault”. Yes, everything bay’s fault lol. How’s about, she kept taking on those kinds of roles because she’s actually content doing them. The reason she couldn’t handle bay had something maybe to do with…the reasons she explicitly stated(totalitarian).
Shia was never her boyfriend(for one), she’s been with the same guy for along while and it’s not him. That said, yes we all know it was Shia who said what he said, the issue is you are not actually looking at what he said or more importantly why he said it. Again, he was talking about why production is more easy going with Rosie than it was with Fox, why everyone is at higher spirits. Not so much as to why Fox left. Then you say that, you never found any thing she said that contradicted it? How many interviews did you find that asked her about what Shia said exactly? And what exactly would she contradict; he wasn’t talking about why she left. It would be like saying one actor absolutely hated wearing the batman suit whilst the newer more seasoned(in suits) actor takes it well and everyone is in high(er) spirits on this newer shoot. That has nothing to do with why the other actor left the lucrative batman role only to do more rubber costume gigs. I digress, the content of interview is being misconstrued.

6)My Anniston point, pertains to anyone who can read not so much anyone that needs to watch her films(apologies for sounding frank, that’s not my intention). The point in question is simple. There are full on lingering strip teases and hot dog sucking… walking around nakids…etc in her films. There aren’t in these TF films. This point doesn’t depend on anyone watching Anniston films, but rather anyone that can read and apply perspective after having read this very block of text here(for example).

7)My scenarios apply to people in this very thread. Sorry.

8)No one is being called a hypocrite(by me) for having differing views. They are being called a hypocrite for lacking in consistency in their supposedly accusations.

You haven’t seen anyone condemn bay's handling of women, and then go on to praise another director that has a SIMILAR approach. These examples you seek would be present in my post above, I specifically chose those two film(series) so as to by pass this(actual) deflection of ‘Well comedies are different…Well PG13 and R films are different when it comes to my prerogative to be feel women are being objectified”. The films in question are neither ‘comedies’ nor are they R(estricted). I however, would imagine it’s going to be some other thing now that distracts us from seeing the comparisons for what they are as has been the trend.
 
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/megan-fox-shia-labeouf-transformers-sex-appeal-vibe.html

This is the interview I was talking about. There's a quote where he says "Mike films women in a way that appeals to a 16-year-old sexuality". If his actors can admit this you can too.

Bonus: and this is a link to what I was talking about before when I mentioned the actors briefly being involved.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/shia-labeouf-i-hooked-up-with-megan-fox-during-transformers-2011286
 
Last edited:
I assumed you stopped reading my posts long before that tbh.

How could I pull out a story point out of that? Probably cause I watched the film and surmised one. This is pretty much the problem here; the thought for analysis stops when when is distracted by the titillation or even admitted titillation present from bay. It's a dvd commentary. It's like if a director said something(say a giant tree falling down) was to be the huge money shot that got people to the theater. He says this on the dvd commentary in which alot of the point is to speak to what's interesting about what's on screen, and not some video analysis eassy. Does that mean because of that admission that the scene itself which very much is the big money shot in all the trailers that no doubt get's people(young boys even)there and could easily be shot differently no longer serves as a story point worth analysing on our own? Him saying it was anything doesn't change ones ability to read a story. This is very much the case with the Terminator commentaries, Cameron isn't always talking about the story points each scene serves(knife through milk carton/naked Arnold) but rather sometimes, why it’s a 'great shot' and who it might appeal to. Dance movies even more so. It's like you are looking for a reason to shut your brain off and the minute you find the excuse the game is over. Why she changed into a white dress is pretty stated, what did it serve the story was the question and I'm certain I answered it soundly. As for why it was shot that way is no different than why they shot widow in the car with her boobs hanging out(hollywood) other than the fact that the underwear was far harder to see. To come down on one and not the other, above and beyond proves my point. Now we are getting into the game of, 'well I don't see it allll over ironman'. Right.... And as if that changes what it is we are actually comparing. I think it boils down to this: If bay directed the same sequence(that of changing in the back seat) and was asked on the commentary what was it's purpose, he's have grounds to answer the question differently right?

The bay film makes an innuendo about juvenile(though seemingly legal) sex. If you want to get hyperbolic about how disturbing this is(in general) be my guest but I would only imagine you don't watch teen drama's on tv for they are littered with alot more of such things and do so with characters playing younger than seen here, and I see far less hyperbolic outrage there. Again from Teen Wolf to Vampire Diaries, Buffy,teen movies that involve teen vampires etc. Hardly the first time, nor the 'worst time', in film or tv. Of course, a HUGE make or break deal here(the director is in a class all his own) but else where....as speaks to my point. I suppose this is the part where we default back to personal tastes and speaking for ones self, making all this back and forth pointless...
But hey, it's not about the presence of it, it's the 'fact' that the quantity is incessant..

As for my logic, I never said that if one shot that contains such and such bra, it’s 'automatically equivalent' to another shot that contains some other part of a womans body and a different shooting style. That's the strawman at work. When I compare shots to be equivalent it's as I did above with the costume changes. You know the one that keeps being brought up and damned in one film(white dress) yet the other has to be brought up by myself(for it's pretty equivalent minus the story points). You suggested that if IM was littered with it than maybe my comparison of their equivalency perpetrated in both scenes and thus both movies, would have a case? I think this is why we are going around in circles, when equivalency is found and stated…it will never be enough thus why I initially asked what the point of providing examples from the marvel films would serve for with each equivalent point proven, one ‘wouldn’t have a case because of supposed quantity. As for the shot of the girls legs, when it comes to what was actually shown compared to other films..leg's, feet, a glimpse of a bikini behind, a low angle...? As if one as never watched womens vollyball on tv or live. What exactly is shown? If it’s about the style of camera, bay has shot men’s bodies the same way(badboys/pain and gain..).
Your issue isn't that you have something against the portrayal of women in film(bay films that is), It's that you have an issue with the perceived amount of such a thing as you see it in a bay film. Which I find falls into a certain level of hypocrisy on principle but is also conveniently subjective. I suppose this is the part about differing tastes. Which as I've said from the start is all well and good, until it goes beyond that, and people start speaking as to the general truths of the situation. 'One film is, one film isn't' vs 'Both films are but one isn't for me'.

The going premise here is the double standard and selective outrage that has been occurring as it pertains to ‘hollywood’ movies. Now as interesting as it has been to see the subjective up and down on womanization in these marvel films. That hardly addresses the issue. You yourself stated that the ‘bay level of what not’ is all it’s own and soley deserving of the (selective) outrage for you suggest there are no other pg 13 franchises that rival it in doing what it does(how this all actually started). This is where I point you in the direction of the pg-13 rated fast/furious series and the pg13(and PG) rated Bond(the names alone and the majority of it's female intro's) series…franchises rather as Hollywood films that do this very thing if not more so yet receive none or far more negligible levels of outrage, especially on this forum. That is, you walk into those threads and you don’t see fanboy after fanboy going on about how the women are treated or how hurt, disgusted or offended they themselves are. You won’t read reviews for these films in which critics go off about…I digress. I personally describe this as not liking a movie and playing the righteous card to damn it even further. For who can argue against sexism after all.
[YT]7Ua9QJOlM7c[/YT]Video should be titled: Twice the depravity, none of the outrage.

In conclusion, what is present in these bay films is hardly new nor it is exclusive or even 'at it’s most', in relation to the typical Hollywood output depending on the audience. The real difference lies in selective outrage any and all of his films receive. Is this not precisely the double standard as it has been described or am I missing something? And that’s only on the issue of women/sex(it happens with other issues as well).

As for how pointless this all seems, you’re right, it does perhaps seem that way. Only I personally shy away from the tactic of declaring as much in an attempt to belittle the arguments of the opposition in such a way…

That video you posted is exactly how Michael bay shoots his women. (And not at all how women are portrayed in marvel films) I can admit that in that video women are treated as sexual objects. You seem to realize this too. But how do you not realize this is a level beyond the average summer film? Maybe not wolf of wall street level, A&T, but still a level beyond the common pg13 action flick. Even James Bond is trying to downplay sexuality of the franchise in its recent releases. Why? Because of public outcry. People have been whining about how women are portrayed in those films since they started. Bay isn't singled out here at all. You just have selective hearing, it seems. You could make a montage like this for bay films, but try for other series, like batman, planet of the apes, the hobbit, and star wars. All action blockbusters in the vein of the transformers series. You can't, because it's not there. Star track 2 had that ONE scene, and it was gratuitous enough that people complained. However it's quantity was limited to one, where as bay has a trademark style for filming women sexually. That's the difference.

Fast and furious is the only action franchise I'm aware of that doesn't get vocal flack from its fan base for the way women or shown. The difference being that that franchise started from scratch with a sexual undertone. Transformers had over 20 years of a fan base inherited FROM TOYS AND KIDS SHOWS. Do you see why, considering it's following, it's less appropriate to have this much sexuality infused in the way women are shown?
 
The concept of the "male gaze" in a film was first articulated by Laura Mulvey in an essay entitled "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory

The idea of the male gaze, or rather the identification and delineating of a common (systematic) filmmaking strategy, predates the beginning Michael Bay's career by approximately 20 years and that of the Transformers movies by 30 years. It is not in any way specific to Michael Bay, rather it is a product of power relations in our society.
 
I liked it it was certainly better than Revenge of Fallen I'd put in in th #2 spot behind DOTM and the first TF.

I hope we get Unicron for the next one.

7/10.
 
Saw it a second time over the weekend mainly to see minor things I missed the first viewing and this time I focused more on the silly dialogue.

"you got a search warrant?" "my face is my search warrant", not exactly Shakespeare is it? Also noticed Hound wearing a belt with pouches, why would a robot need pouches much less a belt anyway?
 
This film was a visual, and therefore visceral, betrayal.
 
Saw it a second time over the weekend mainly to see minor things I missed the first viewing and this time I focused more on the silly dialogue.

"you got a search warrant?" "my face is my search warrant", not exactly Shakespeare is it? Also noticed Hound wearing a belt with pouches, why would a robot need pouches much less a belt anyway?

There is an abundance of that nonsense.
 
There is an abundance of that nonsense.

There's been nonsense in movies decades before transformers. You have to give this film a free pass because it didn't invent nonsense. :whatever: *sarcasm*
 
The concept of the "male gaze" in a film was first articulated by Laura Mulvey in an essay entitled "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory

The idea of the male gaze, or rather the identification and delineating of a common (systematic) filmmaking strategy, predates the beginning Michael Bay's career by approximately 20 years and that of the Transformers movies by 30 years. It is not in any way specific to Michael Bay, rather it is a product of power relations in our society.

I studied the male gaze in film class. A big part of this theory is that directors and cinematographers do this subconsciously. Michael Bay does this consciously however, so it's not as subliminal as you are suggesting. Nice try.
 
I didn't intend to see any Transformers film again after the insulting debacle of Revenge of the Fallen, but my friend wanted to see this and the Dinobots looked cool in the trailer so I saw it and now I'm just angry.

Bay clearly just doesn't care about any part of these films. The incessant changing of the aspect ratio, multiple times within scenes (between alternate shots of a scene even!) was horribly distracting and seemingly pointless. If one simply must see this film, I urge you to give the IMAX version a wide berth so that you don't have to put up with the same nonsense.

The family Wahlberg planted a marginally interesting seed of a film but as soon as Optimus bursts out of the barn the film simply abandons any pretense that anyone involved gave a damn about what was happening on screen. Cade and the Irish boyfriend repeat the same mildly antagonistic exchange until the boyfriend wins Cade's respect by virtue of still not being dead before the end. Also, Cade does a complete 180 on his entire life philosophy for no real reason.

The daughter, needless to say, plays no role in changing her father's mind about her freedoms and just allows Bay to indulge his appetite for overt sexualisation, as do the various women who are introduced legs first.

The villains are plentiful and painfully transparent in their purpose of padding the running time and lazily setting up sequels. They're largely characterised by their gruff, no nonsense attitudes toward their work which makes for rather bland antagonism. The exception of course is Stanley Tucci whose scenery chewing made for the only consistently tolerable screen presence, although the film awkwardly seems to forgive him his own despicable crimes.

In fact, there's a bizarre tone deafness permeating the entire film. Despite the villains being thoroughly unpleasant and ruthless, the portrayal of the autobots seems to frame their actions as almost reasonable. We're supposed to cheer when Prime rides Grimlock into battle and ignore that he's no better than the villain who previously subjugated the poor dinobot (It's ok though, he gave them freedom at the end, he's a benevolent tyrant!). Hound's one note of personality is a bloodlust and fondness for killing, while the green inexplicably coat wearing autobot resents following orders and acts petulantly. At one point, Hound executes a prisoner for being ugly and the whole thing is played for laughs.

I'd go into greater detail about other things I disliked, such as the obtrusive, ****eish product placement or the lazily written samuraibot but I'm conscious of my ranting so I'll cut it short. I just hope that when the film inevitably rakes in the cash that it finds its way to the CGI artists, they only ones who deserve a modicum of praise.
 
It blows my mind to see people here writing up essays in their posts attempting to defend Michael Bay like he's just another Hollywood film maker.
His name is synonymous with excessiveness in both action and T&A. It's undeniable.
 
It blows my mind to see people here writing up essays in their posts attempting to defend Michael Bay like he's just another Hollywood film maker.
His name is synonymous with excessiveness in both action and T&A. It's undeniable.

Personally I was debating the contents of his films or rather this film in particular, not his reputation. I agree with your assessment of his reputation: it's synonymous with excess, that's undeniable.

Reputations are interesting, but it's important to remember that we live in a tremendously depraved and hypocritical society, and as such reputations are of limited value.
 
Last edited:
Also noticed Hound wearing a belt with pouches, why would a robot need pouches much less a belt anyway?

Why would they make robots shaped like dinosaurs or human trucks? Why would the autobots and deceptions come to Earth when there are tens of billions of planets in the Galaxy that they could use? Why would the military the military create colourful deceptions when in fact in the real world most of their tech is a monochrome grey? Why would the Quintessons only send one bounty hunter after Prime?

These criticisms are silly, it's a popcorn action in the build of Pacific Rim, Battleship, and Godzilla, and I have no idea why you would pay money to see a film twice if you don't like it the first time.

ETA: it's weird how Michael Bay gets criticised for giving robots pouches they don't need, whereas Christopher Nolan is criticised for asking "is that part necessary" to every component of the bat suit. People love to complain, it validates them, but they should consider whether or not the complaints are meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Why Michael Bay is the most important director in Hollywood
Robbie Collin leaps to the defence of Transformers director Michael Bay
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...the-most-important-director-in-Hollywood.html

The trick to understanding Bay is not dismissing him. Any common-or-garden nitwit can, and frequently does, point a camera at girls, cars and carnage, and call it a movie. Not anyone can take those three elements and turn them into a film that can fill cinemas for weeks. Bay’s detractors often grouse that he has nothing to say: what they mean is they’ve heard what he says loud and clear, and don’t much care for it.
 
Michael Bay cannot portray a truly decent or interesting female character if his life depended on it. At best, his female characters are tolerable. You know what honestly bugged me here, the lack of Shia and the NEST team. Now I'm not upset that they're gone, far from it in fact. But the lack of ANY kind of explanation bugs me. It's a pet peeve of mine, characters who were really important in one film or TV season or book, etc are just gone in the sequel and there's absolutely NO attempt to explain what happened to them. Given the connection between Sam and Bumblebee, or Optimus and the people at NEST, they could have at least given us one or two lines of dialogue explaining why those characters aren't around/what happened to them. It's not that hard and just reeks of laziness on the scriptwriter's part.
 
Huh?
So this is you suggesting that Wolf has no excessive exploitation of women and that all such scenes are like the one you are describing above(about a women that will sell her soul for money) fully in service to the best of story telling intentions? Sure. The film was brought into the conversation to put into perspective just what things look like when a film is 3 hours full of female exploitation, a perspective much needed for similar is being said of TF4 if I'm not mistaken. It's about Perspective, not merely, 'did the woman shaving her head have a message'.

Never seen that before. Not in anything...
If he wanted to glamorize a '17 year old waking off a 20 year old man, he choose an pretty odd way of going about glamorizing it, I mean he could have made it soo much 'cooler and awesome and lingering shots of half naked...etc' such restraint, maybe he's learning?

I suppose that explains why his action films have alot of continued success. No weight or anything that makes a good action scene(according to the rules). Maybe his action scenes just suck and it's the story and characters shaky camera that attract the audience..
'cool bro' -nice touch.

Yes, that's exactly what it was. Wolf of Wall Street works because a. it was a true story and that stuff actually happened, and b. at no point was it glamorized. It was abundantly clear that Belfort and his posse were disgusting, immoral, misogynistic, degenerate criminals who used and abused people, including women. If people found any of that "glamorous," then that's a problem with THEM and THEIR perspective, not the film. I certainly didn't find it glamorous, Belfort was a drug-addicted, wife-beating a-hole criminal, nothing more and nothing less. As for Bay, he objectives women purely for it's own sake. He cannot do a truly interesting or multi-dimensional female character. They're all just eye-candy to him.
 
Yes, that's exactly what it was. Wolf of Wall Street works because a. it was a true story and that stuff actually happened, and b. at no point was it glamorized. It was abundantly clear that Belfort and his posse were disgusting, immoral, misogynistic, degenerate criminals who used and abused people, including women. If people found any of that "glamorous," then that's a problem with THEM and THEIR perspective, not the film. I certainly didn't find it glamorous, Belfort was a drug-addicted, wife-beating a-hole criminal, nothing more and nothing less. As for Bay, he objectives women purely for it's own sake. He cannot do a truly interesting or multi-dimensional female character. They're all just eye-candy to him.

But the daughter in this movie was in fact more than just eye candy. Her father's attempts to micromanage her life failed and the fact they failed proved ultimately helpful. That ties into the story.
 
But the daughter in this movie was in fact more than just eye candy. Her father's attempts to micromanage her life failed and the fact they failed proved ultimately helpful. That ties into the story.

You mean the fact she had a drag racing boyfriend allowed them to survive one of the action scenes? Other than that, the only role her character has is to be captured, allowing an excuse for her to overhear some information and help pull a sword out of Prime (which I guess he couldn't do himself?). To an extent, I suppose you're right in the sense that being given a perfunctory action beat or two is the only thing that really makes any character 'important' in this film. The rub is still that when you couple the general emptiness of the character with Bay's fetishistic filming you're going to run up against complaints of eye candy. Rightly so, I feel.
 
It's kind of transparent in how he feels obligated to give the females a couple of beats too. He doesn't want to, he just feels he has to to kinda hide the fact they are pointless eye candy.

I remember in Dark of the Moon when they are talking to the sat/nav drone thing. For some reason they have Rosie McPoutface start speaking to the military through it, giving them co-ordinates... instead of Tyrese's character or another soldier.

It was just so transparent. I can imagine the conversation now "So we have Rosie start giving co-ordinates to the military command" "Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the soldiers to do that?" "Who cares about what makes sense? We have to at least pretend she has a purpose in this film other than being eye candy".
 
But the daughter in this movie was in fact more than just eye candy. Her father's attempts to micromanage her life failed and the fact they failed proved ultimately helpful. That ties into the story.

Agreed, she did have an actual arc. And in fairness she was the only one used for TnA shots. Sophia Myles or the Chinese chick didnt have any titillating shots that I recall.

It's kind of transparent in how he feels obligated to give the females a couple of beats too. He doesn't want to, he just feels he has to to kinda hide the fact they are pointless eye candy.

I remember in Dark of the Moon when they are talking to the sat/nav drone thing. For some reason they have Rosie McPoutface start speaking to the military through it, giving them co-ordinates... instead of Tyrese's character or another soldier.

It was just so transparent. I can imagine the conversation now "So we have Rosie start giving co-ordinates to the military command" "Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the soldiers to do that?" "Who cares about what makes sense? We have to at least pretend she has a purpose in this film other than being eye candy".

I'm not denying these things happen in his movies. But this time was because she the exact building and plan the decepticons had at that point because she was was told by the human guy and privvy to a couple of conversations. The information she gave was only info she knew.
 
It's basically the BAREST MINIMUM that Bay could possibly do to make her in any way relevant to the plot beyond being blatant eye candy/a damsel in distress to be rescued. BTW, she's supposed to be 17 years old, so using her a blatant eye candy is kind of creepy anyway.
 
Saw this today and it surprised me by how much I enjoyed it. I suspect a lot of the negativity comes from the strong anti-Bay sentiment a lot of people have. It seems people don't judge his films on their own merits. This had a lot of good in it worth mentioning but reviewers chose to not mention.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,481
Messages
21,737,365
Members
45,566
Latest member
Cap2024
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"