Transformers Was Michael Bay a Good Choice?

[miisterwilson]

this is a thread that ive beenthinking about posting. mods if this thread is dumb close it by all means. but for real do u think that michael bay was the best person to make this movie? i personally think so but from ive noticed that alot of people didnt like basically any of his movies. i loved them all. i think armageddon kicked a** lol

 

[Nebins]

Yes! He was the perfect choice! The mass appeal of this movie is giant robots blowing crap up and Michael Bay is the best person to deliver on that. I know people want the underlying theme about resources and energy and whatnot but no one is going to want to be preached to by 25 foot tall robots.

 

[The Kid]

without hesitations, YES.

I truly think Michael bay has always been making 80s toons with his movies. so of course spielberg knew what he was doing.

no matter what you may think of this movie, it's going to be ONE BIG ASS EPISODE OF AN 80S CARTOON. seriously look at bay's work and compare it to the 80s toons we used to watch. Same over the top action, sexy women, arnold swartzeneggar looking heros and stuff.

 

[Avangarde]

As far as giving the TF any justice from the action side of things, yes, Bay is perfect, as far as story wise

 

[Rezzo]

As far as giving the TF any justice from the action side of things, yes, Bay is perfect, as far as story wise

Agreed

 

[blind_fury]

James Cameron knows how to create engrossing stories/characters with action.

Bay is "perfect" for those who never expected much from a Transformers movie other than explosions.

 

[Avangarde]

Cameron would have also been a good choice, but after seeing the action in this movie you will believe that Bay did a great job wit the action.

 

[CFlash]

As far as giving the TF any justice from the action side of things, yes, Bay is perfect, as far as story wise

I agree.

I will wait until I've seen the movie to vote... But one thing I will say is that I think Michael Bay represents the worst in Hollywood. I have hated all his movies with the exception of the first Bad Boys (I was in high school)... and I marginally liked The Rock. Armageddon is a disgrace of a sci-fi movie, and Pearl Harbor is an attrocious accounting of a tragedy.

Rolland Emmerich and Michael Bay represent everything that was wrong with Hollywood in the 1990's... until real filmmakers finally took center stage with stuff like The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. I'm sure Transformers is good popcorn fun but I sure hope it doesn't spark a return to those braindead Independence Day type movies.

Was he a "good" choice for Transformers. Probably. Was he the best choice and is the Transformers movie the sci-fi classic it could have been (in a class with say Aliens, Terminator, etc). I don't know. But, I doubt it.

 

[Avangarde]

Well Transformers 2 has just recieved the green light by Paramount, so I wonder if Bay will return for number 2?

 

[blind_fury]

Cameron would have also been a good choice, but after seeing the action in this movie you will believe that Bay did a great job wit the action.

If the movie makes money Bay is the perfect choice from a strictly business perspective.

If the movie is visually impressive but lacks engaging storytelling he's far from perfect for the franchise. Hopefully Spielberg will take over the sequel and give the films some much needed weight like the Empire Strikes Back did for the Star Wars franchise.

 

[Avangarde]

You make a good point B_F, Bay has a few movies lined up for the next couple of years. Its quite possible that Spielberg might take over, if he uses the same template of the action with good SS story telling it could be quite promising.

 

[nosebleed.]

Like I keep saying, Hollywood needs to start dual directing movies. Take each director's strong points and let them be in charge of that department (Action, Story, etc). Offensive and defensive teams.

 

[Avangarde]

Interesting, but everyone know what Bay is like "THIS IS MY MOVIE BIATCH'S"

 

[The Kid]

Well all I know is that if someone like ang lee made this movie and put all sorts of deep psychological **** in it, people would be saying "boring! boooooo, we want action!"

bay never had a chance with some here at the hype because they're dumb ****s.

 

[blind_fury]

Interesting, but everyone know what Bay is like "THIS IS MY MOVIE BIATCH'S"

lolz. So true.

Bay's ego would never allow him to share a movie. But I happen to think Spielberg could do fine without Bay's input.

The movie may not be as loud or explosive but it will elevate the franchise beyond silly action movie to something more the way Empire Strikes Back did for Star Wars.

 

[nosebleed.]

Well all I know is that if someone like ang lee made this movie and put all sorts of deep psychological **** in it, people would be saying "boring! boooooo, we want action!"

bay never had a chance with some here at the hype because they're dumb ****s.

Dude, you've been here long enough to know what director's people have stated they wanted for this movie. And ANG LEE was NOT one of them. So quit acting like a jackass.

 

[shigsy2003]

Action wise YES
Story/character wise: NO

 

[CFlash]

Yes! He was the perfect choice! The mass appeal of this movie is giant robots blowing crap up and Michael Bay is the best person to deliver on that. I know people want the underlying theme about resources and energy and whatnot but no one is going to want to be preached to by 25 foot tall robots.

They don't have to be. The story itself can make the point.

 

[blind_fury]

Well all I know is that if someone like ang lee made this movie and put all sorts of deep psychological **** in it, people would be saying "boring! boooooo, we want action!"

bay never had a chance with some here at the hype because they're dumb ****s.

here you go with your nonsensical extremes. Either a movie is nothing but explosions or it's boring drama.

Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws a good mix of both. "Giant Sharks Biting" is forgettable nonsense without good storytelling.

What do you think is a better movie? Mark Wahlberg's Planet of the Apes or Charlton Heston's Planet of the Apes?

One had 4 sequels, tv show spin offs, and made sci-fi history the other made some cash and was quickly forgotten.

 

[CFlash]

here you go with your nonsensical extremes. Either a movie is nothing but explosions or it's boring drama.

Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws a good mix of both. "Giant Sharks Biting" is forgettable nonsense without good storytelling.

What do you think is a better movie? Mark Wahlberg's Planet of the Apes or Charlton Heston's Planet of the Apes?

One had 4 sequels, tv show spin offs, and made sci-fi history the other made some cash and was quickly forgotten.

Dude, why do you take that guy's bait? His favorite movie is Catwoman. Nuff said.

 

[The Kid]

Dude, you've been here long enough to know what director's people have stated they wanted for this movie. And ANG LEE was NOT one of them. So quit acting like a jackass.

WTF. I have an open mind, ME, ONE OF THE FEW ON THIS CRAZY BOARD WHO HAS AN OPEN MIND, and I'm a jackass for it?

People have been bashing bay since DAY ONE he was announced.

And they want to play as if they're heros, defending the greatness of transformers from the evil michael bay by not even giving the man a fair shot at it.

The entire reason the negatrons are called negatrons is because they're a bunch of cynical, narrominded, ass holes who come into every thread and turn it into a hate-fest and some of us are damn tired of it.

 

[blind_fury]

They don't have to be. The story itself can make the point.

Exactly. Harrison Ford didn't have a 40 minute speech explaining why the Nazi conquest was spiritually corrupt. The story expressed this and gave the movie much more depth than if Indiana Jones was just trying to protect some non-religious artifact with no spiritual significance.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

As much as I don't like Bay at times (He will always have my love for the Rock) his powers come into play not with the story, but the pretty things we see on the screen. Spielberg's basic story is what we will see and Bay had no choice in this matter.

 

[blind_fury]

WTF. I have an open mind, ME, ONE OF THE FEW ON THIS CRAZY BOARD WHO HAS AN OPEN MIND, and I'm a jackass for it?

People have been bashing bay since DAY ONE he was announced.

And they want to play as if they're heros, defending the greatness of transformers from the evil michael bay by not even giving the man a fair shot at it.

The entire reason the negatrons are called negatrons is because they're a bunch of cynical, narrominded, ass holes who come into every thread and turn it into a hate-fest and some of us are damn tired of it.

We're not even arguing about Bay's movie as much as were arguing if Transformers has more to offer than explosions and flashy effects.

You can't even concede that Transformers has more to offer than explosions.

If more of Bay's cheerleaders could admit this maybe we could get beyond this argument and discuss the artistic merits of the film itself rather than spend so much time debating the merits of the source material.

 

[The Kid]

We're not even arguing about Bay's movie as much as were arguing if Transformers has more to offer than explosions and flashy effects.

You can't even concede that Transformers has more to offer than explosions.

If more of Bay's cheerleaders could admit this maybe we could get beyond this argument and discuss the artistic merits of the film itself rather than spend so much time debating the merits of the source material.

Well we don't really have a film yet to even discuss. It's the same old "bay's worse than uwe boll" crap you keep saying ad nauseum.

I've seen beast wars, love it, and the depth comes from the characters. Not the thematic stuff really.

When it's thematic, it becomes really lame like beast machines.