The Energon Pub

AbsumZer0 wrote:He's not 'horrible'. Uwe Boll is a horrible director. It's hard to say he's a bad director either. He's just... mediocre. If I were ranking action directors I'd put him somewhere around Paul W.S. Anderson and Renny Harlin.

His earlier films had really strong casts (Sean Connery, John Malkovich, Steve Buscemi, Ed Harris, etc.), he incorporates a lot of explosions, and a lot of car chases. Some people really seem to love his car chase scenes while some people, like myself, can't stand the way he changes the camera and POV every few seconds.

His choice of scripts are usually full of:

Cliched dialogue

Predictabilities (like the last half hour of Armageddon. Will the hero detonate detonate the bomb or will the government fire a nuke and potentially poison the world's atmosphere? Oh, the suspense!)

and

Implausibilities (you're an honored veteran who killed a drunken redneck in self-defense. You're going to prison for a long time because your body is a killing machine!).

He's also heavily criticized for inaccuracies, which is fine when it comes to most summer popcorn flicks, but is bound to cause trouble when you're making hard sci-fi films or films based on historical events. Patriotic themes and innuendo is a sticking point for some people as well, not so much here in the United States but overseas. I can't say I blame them. I hate it when Jet Li's films suddenly end on a 'China Must Be United!' voice-over.

You summed up my feelings pretty well. He's not the worst but there are lot of things about his directing style that I don't like.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Phategod1 wrote:"I go to the movies to be entertained."A common excuse for enjoying (and admitting to enjoying) ****.

You are a hundred percent right.

So what?

I don't care if it's **** because I make the choice to leave my brain behind (lower the bar if you will) when I go to such movies, or pop them into the player, usually with heavy amounts of beer and maybe some nachos involved.

You see where I'm going with this?

If you're unable to put your brain on hold, Citizen Kane is waiting.

Yeah, but personally, I feel I'm being a dick if I were to shut my brain off that far.
I say that for the simple reason that, if enough people do as you do, then the message is sent that "merely **** movies are ok to make from now on".

And really, looking at the last few years o' cinematic poop... I'd say the trees of such thinking have definitely released their fruit, splattering all over at the base, seeping into the ground to grow a forestful of them.

The funny thing is I don't shut my brain off for most of his movies. Or many action movies for that matter. There are of course really bad action movies that have no real story or any flow whatsoever to them (The Punisher). Bays action movies aren't like that. They tend to have a beginning middle and end and don't really get lost along the way. Those kind of action movies I can enjoy without feeling like my brain has been hit with a golf club. ID4, I Robot, Armageddon are all movies that I enjoyed and didn't feel bad for liking them. They were coherent to a point and flowed decently. That's all I can ask from an action movie. And that's what I expect in Transformers from Mr. Bay.

And honestly I like a lot more of Bay's movies than Anderson's.

Zuko wrote:The funny thing is I don't shut my brain off for most of his movies. Or many action movies for that matter. There are of course really bad action movies that have no real story or any flow whatsoever to them (The Punisher). Bays action movies aren't like that. They tend to have a beginning middle and end and don't really get lost along the way. Those kind of action movies I can enjoy without feeling like my brain has been hit with a golf club. ID4, I Robot, Armageddon are all movies that I enjoyed and didn't feel bad for liking them. They were coherent to a point and flowed decently. That's all I can ask from an action movie. And that's what I expect in Transformers from Mr. Bay.

And honestly I like a lot more of Bay's movies than Anderson's.

I'll agree with you on I Robot. I think it was definitely an underrated film that got more flack than it deserved based on the bad decision to buy the rights to Isaac Asimov's short story and slap the name on it. But seriously, how can you sit through ID4 or any of Bay's films without "turning your brain off" to some degree? They're riddled with things that would make absoultely no sense in reality.

Take Armageddon for example:

An asteroid is about to hit the Earth and the only people who can save the planet are a team of American oil drillers... because they're good at drilling. In spite of the importance of the mission they're willing to allow the daughter of the team leader in the ground control operating center to cry and generally be distracting. Fair enough. But then there's the scientific inaccuracies, the most glaring of which are listed on wikipedia:

"While Hollywood science fiction films often bend the rules of science in order to create a more compelling plot, science critics blasted Armageddon more than most for its poor adherence to the laws of physics. The film was lambasted for being too noisy (contradicting the fact that there is no sound in the vacuum of outer space), even though this factor is often disregarded in Hollywood. It is also often mentioned that no nuclear weapon would be able to sufficiently break up an asteroid that, according to Truman, was "the size of Texas". Also, the surface of the asteroid is extremely craggy and sharp, and in real life asteroids would be worn smooth to look more like a potato. Another error can be found in the films' introduction, showing the K/T extinction event 65 million years ago, in which the continents are shown in their present day configuration. Another major goof is that the detonation of the nuclear bomb that terminates the threat from the asteroid is visible from many different places on Earth simultaneously, from the United States to India. In reality, only a small portion of the planet would have been in position for people to observe the explosion from the surface. Director Michael Bay says that he intentionally disregarded these facts for dramatic effect."

Because I'm not concerned about how accurate a meteor or asteroid is? Most people wouldn't be either. Now if it were something like Apollo 13 I would expect it. The stuff you brought up never even occurred to me to be honest until you made mention. Like I said if it has a semi coherent beginning middle and end I'm happy.

Although you left out the biggest thing in Armageddon. Why was there a minigun on the bottom of the driller? Things that are insanely odd like that stick out to me. Not how an asteroid would be shaped.

In these grand scale explosion fests I always come back to suspension of belief...No I didn't write that wrong. Theres certain things, like facts, that tend to get thrown out and much of the time for good reason. If you have as odd of a plot as oil drillers planting a nuke on an asteroid, should it really matter who could see it down on the planet? If theres an alien invasion where they have giant super lasers blowing up cities I can forgive them for throwing in some funny Jewish related jokes. It all comes down to how odd the original concept is that I set my limits on. The weirder the plot the more I'm willing to accept. Transforming robots from another planet will give me a lot of room to work in.

Zuko wrote:The funny thing is I don't shut my brain off for most of his movies.
Those kind of action movies I can enjoy without feeling like my brain has been hit with a golf club. ID4, I Robot, Armageddon are all movies that I enjoyed and didn't feel bad for liking them. They were coherent to a point and flowed decently. That's all I can ask from an action movie. And that's what I expect in Transformers from Mr. Bay.

Yeah, I agree with you and AbsumZer0 on I, Robot... a good movie that was HURT by the fact they called it after Asimov's classic book.

But ID4 left me punching myself in the nuts for paying to see it. I gave in to the inundation of advertising surrounding it.
>__<

Ok, so (SPOILERS) Will Smith's chick survives the city being destroyed (nice terrible CGI effects with the dog jumping in the window) only to come upon the WIFE of the president of the United States.
Then, states away, Will Smith comes upon the PRESIDENT himself! Wow... that's one massive suspension of belief there. X D
Don't even get me started on Jeff Goldblum's "save the earth" ranting, or the "jews are people too" stuff, or the whole cheesy patriotic veteran dealie... ugh.
I haven't seen such a violent force-feeding of social concepts since one of the Lethal Weapons, left-wing views shot in your face every moment, posters everywhere, Glover's daughter walking around with messages imprinted on her shirt lol.

It's like "OKAY, OKAY I GET IT! You want me to think (insert here) THIS WAY!"

ID4 had a great city destruction scene, a great (failed) alien autopsy scene... but the rest? Eh... it's not something I would've willingly paid for, had internet downloads been present then.

Zuko wrote:The weirder the plot the more I'm willing to accept. Transforming robots from another planet will give me a lot of room to work in.

That's cool, but now I am a little curious. Is Attack of the Killer Tomato one of your favorites? It's a pretty wierd plot.

stormrider wrote:

Zuko wrote:The weirder the plot the more I'm willing to accept. Transforming robots from another planet will give me a lot of room to work in.

That's cool, but now I am a little curious. Is Attack of the Killer Tomato one of your favorites? It's a pretty wierd plot.

It's along the lines of Mars Attacks with me. I'll watch it for pure comedic value.

Zuko wrote:

stormrider wrote:

Zuko wrote:The weirder the plot the more I'm willing to accept. Transforming robots from another planet will give me a lot of room to work in.

That's cool, but now I am a little curious. Is Attack of the Killer Tomato one of your favorites? It's a pretty wierd plot.

It's along the lines of Mars Attacks with me. I'll watch it for pure comedic value.

But this is what I'm saying. With a director who makes movies that are as simplistic and no-brainer as Bay does, it really depends on the actors even more so than if you have a director who puts a lot of thought (but not preachiness) into the film.

The only reason I enjoy Armageddon is because of Bruce Willis (and maybe a little bit of the crazy cosmonaut). But if Bruce Willis wasn't in Armageddon than I would never even watched it to begin with let alone tolerate it.

I must have missed your point. I don't see his movies as no-brain filth. Most of them are coherent with a bit of "that really wouldn't work in real life" but are for the most part grounded (when in comparison to the actual idea for the story).

Actors make the movie to be sure. But just because this movie doesn't have a giant star in it doesn't mean there aren't enough other things there to carry it....Like giant transforming robots for example. I'm sure they're the draw of the movie and not the actors.

Zuko wrote:I must have missed your point. I don't see his movies as no-brain filth. Most of them are coherent with a bit of "that really wouldn't work in real life" but are for the most part grounded (when in comparison to the actual idea for the story).

Actors make the movie to be sure. But just because this movie doesn't have a giant star in it doesn't mean there aren't enough other things there to carry it....Like giant transforming robots for example. I'm sure they're the draw of the movie and not the actors.

I wasn't saying no-brainer as in the insult, but in the same context that you were stating with the turning off the brain and watching.

I would like to believe that what you say about the focus with the TFs will be true, but so far everything that we have seen and been told by Bay and Co. (not just rumors) states the exact opposite that the movie will center most of its attention around the humans and the complexities in their lives due to the arrival of the TFs.

To me, that not only goes opposite of almost all TF canons (shows, comics, etc.), but in no way improves this movie to be watched by anyone (hardcore fans or those with no knowledge of TFs) in anyway (entertainment-wise or analysis-wise).

Riotflea wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Phategod1 wrote:"I go to the movies to be entertained."A common excuse for enjoying (and admitting to enjoying) ****.

You are a hundred percent right.

So what?

I don't care if it's **** because I make the choice to leave my brain behind (lower the bar if you will) when I go to such movies, or pop them into the player, usually with heavy amounts of beer and maybe some nachos involved.

You see where I'm going with this?

If you're unable to put your brain on hold, Citizen Kane is waiting.

Yeah, but personally, I feel I'm being a dick if I were to shut my brain off that far.
I say that for the simple reason that, if enough people do as you do, then the message is sent that "merely **** movies are ok to make from now on".

And really, looking at the last few years o' cinematic poop... I'd say the trees of such thinking have definitely released their fruit, splattering all over at the base, seeping into the ground to grow a forestful of them.

That is entirely correct.

And I still say it's not a bad thing. So yes, basically now I'm defending Hollywood's mass outpour of dreck and the consumption of resources, manpower, time, and money that it takes to make them, show them, and sell them. Not to mention that I'm defending all the people out there who truly think they're awesome without getting the tongue in cheek part at all, and not turning their brains off an inch. These are things that I grudgingly defend so I can still turn off my brain when the time comes.

Why?

Because of the instances when I don't have to turn it off at all. All the Highlander 2's, Ghost Riders, and Van Helsings only serve to make it all the more special when I watch stuff like Goodfellas, First Blood, Trainspotting, True Romance, Pulp Fiction, Departed, Paradise Now, The Matrix, Good Will Hunting, and The Good Shepherd.

There may be forests of bad movies out there, but when something truly awesome comes along, it's all the better. And therefore I don't mind turning off my brain and having fun and being entertained at something silly in the meantime.

It depends on your style of director. I love the Rock, Armageddon, Bay Boys 1 & 2. And the Island was a great flick IMO. It wasn't all about explosions. Bay delt with the morality issues surrounding science of cloning. There wasn't a big action sequence until an hour into film. So when Bay listend to his detractors, and focused on "Story" over Action. The fans snubbed it. I like Michael Bay, the average movie goer loves Michael Bay movies. It's only the uber geeks who bitch about organic web shooters, and genitals on silver surfer who have issues with Bay. Who cares, I love him so I'm in a for great time

Nico wrote:Is he that...you know...horrible as a director? I never saw a single Michael Bay movie!

But everyone is joking on the "Big Explosion" Whats the deal???

I would not say he is a bad director, but he is bad for the Transformers franchise. Bad Boys was good, I thought Pearl Harbor was really good, but I love history war movies. I didn't even really know who Micheal Bay was when those movie came out. But this new bayformers is not working for us. He makes MTV action movies, Transformers should be more of a Star Trek type of movie...Like the new Star Trek came out it was good, but the MTV crowd ain't going crazy for it like they do for a Transformers flick. It actually features Star Trek characters that the fanbase knows. What Bay did to Transformers is hard to identify.

Skullgrin140 wrote:He's not a bad Director, but Pearl Harbor was just pathetic. Really Pathetic

Thats an interesting post man. I thought it was an ok war flick, I don't think there are many other Pearl Harbor flicks to compare to, not like Civil War and Vietnam flicks, there are tons of those. To each his own I guess. Peace

Coolyfett wrote:It actually features Star Trek characters that the fanbase knows. What Bay did to Transformers is hard to identify.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, who are most of those characters? Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, Megatron, Starscream, Frenzy, Skorponok, Brawl, Blackout, Bonecrusher, Barricade. I've never even HEARD of any of those characters. bay just made them all up on the spot I guess.

Stormrider wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:He's not 'horrible'. Uwe Boll is a horrible director. It's hard to say he's a bad director either. He's just... mediocre. If I were ranking action directors I'd put him somewhere around Paul W.S. Anderson and Renny Harlin.

His earlier films had really strong casts (Sean Connery, John Malkovich, Steve Buscemi, Ed Harris, etc.), he incorporates a lot of explosions, and a lot of car chases. Some people really seem to love his car chase scenes while some people, like myself, can't stand the way he changes the camera and POV every few seconds.

His choice of scripts are usually full of:

Cliched dialogue

Predictabilities (like the last half hour of Armageddon. Will the hero detonate detonate the bomb or will the government fire a nuke and potentially poison the world's atmosphere? Oh, the suspense!)

and

Implausibilities (you're an honored veteran who killed a drunken redneck in self-defense. You're going to prison for a long time because your body is a killing machine!).

He's also heavily criticized for inaccuracies, which is fine when it comes to most summer popcorn flicks, but is bound to cause trouble when you're making hard sci-fi films or films based on historical events. Patriotic themes and innuendo is a sticking point for some people as well, not so much here in the United States but overseas. I can't say I blame them. I hate it when Jet Li's films suddenly end on a 'China Must Be United!' voice-over.

You summed up my feelings pretty well. He's not the worst but there are lot of things about his directing style that I don't like.

Yea I can agree with that man. His movies are like long music videos with no music. I think someone else should have got the Tf Franchise that would do it right.

No Flaming Please

Coolyfett wrote:Yea I can agree with that man. His movies are like long music videos with no music. I think someone else should have got the Tf Franchise that would do it right.

No Flaming Please

I think Michael Bay did do TF right. It's a big flashy action flick with robots that turn into cars, it was, in fact, more than I had expected. And in any case, doing what I assume is your definition of "right" wouldn't be a good idea; who wants to watch two hours of blocky cartoon robots shoot at each other for whatever reason? The whole movie would have been geared towards kids, remember that. If you thought the movie was brainless, think of what would happen if Bay had done it more like G1.

His movies are fun, that is Micheal Bay's niche the fun action movie, he never fails in that regard.

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, who are most of those characters? Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, Megatron, Starscream, Frenzy, Skorponok, Brawl, Blackout, Bonecrusher, Barricade. I've never even HEARD of any of those characters. bay just made them all up on the spot I guess.

The names are the only aspect of the movie characters Michael Bay didn't make up. I'm still amazed that Prime is the only one who is immediately recognizable.

Why call him Bumblebee if the only thing in common with his namesake is the color? He's a yellow sportscar, why not call him Hotshot? MovieBee more closely resembles Hotshot, a character that has had much more pre-film exposure than BB. Seems to me that more of the target audience would recognise the name "Hotshot" over "Bumblebee".

Anyway, that's my problem with Michael Bay, along with his attitude.

MotherArcee wrote:His movies are fun, that is Micheal Bay's niche the fun action movie, he never fails in that regard.

Totally agreed with. He does big effing explosions. If we didn't have Michael Bay as the director.. we wouldn't have very enjoyable explosions... and the car chase scenes would probably be sub-par. Michael has shown what he can do, and as a fandom we should be grateful. Death threats, computer hacking and home invasions would probably scare the **** out of any other director, but Michael has stayed true to the challenge and has done a fantastic job.

Gandalf wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, who are most of those characters? Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, Megatron, Starscream, Frenzy, Skorponok, Brawl, Blackout, Bonecrusher, Barricade. I've never even HEARD of any of those characters. bay just made them all up on the spot I guess.

The names are the only aspect of the movie characters Michael Bay didn't make up. I'm still amazed that Prime is the only one who is immediately recognizable.

Why call him Bumblebee if the only thing in common with his namesake is the color? He's a yellow sportscar, why not call him Hotshot? MovieBee more closely resembles Hotshot, a character that has had much more pre-film exposure than BB. Seems to me that more of the target audience would recognise the name "Hotshot" over "Bumblebee".

Anyway, that's my problem with Michael Bay, along with his attitude.

This was a Geewun orientated movie franchise. If Hot Shot's namesake was there instead of Bumblebee, i'd say more than half of the fandom would be livid. So what if it doesn't fit the mold? It does a perfectly fine job the way it is.

And imagine what it would be like..

Michael: Yeah.. we got the leader.. Optimus Prime..
Fans: Yeah!!
Michael: The medic, Ratchet...
Fans: Woo!
Michael: Then there's Ironhide, the weapons expert...
Fans: Kickass!
Michael: Jazz, the cool dude..
Fans: Awesome!
Michael: And oh yeah, the one man-franchise kid-appeal character.. Hot Shot
Fans: Awe... wait... WTF? asjdfhadsfjdafhdasf! Die Michael Die!

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:The Rock and Armageddon are great films...

IF

you can maintain certain mindsets. Okay, The Rock is just plain bad-ass. Most people would agree. But even it can get out of hand to some.

Armageddon is a two and half hour trailer for the real movie which doesn't seem to have been released. I've been pouring over imdb and... oh wait it is the movie. I personally like Armageddon and I own it on VHS tape. That in itself is just plain funny, but it shows that while I like the movie, I am not willing to pay for it on DVD.

I read something not an hour ago about how all movies are art in some way, and blah blah blah. Now I understand why so many people hate Michael Bay. That statement was like a lightbulb over the head if there ever was one.

There are two kinds of people. Those who think all movies are art in some fashion, and those who understand and accept that a great many don't even come close and never meant to. The latter can appreciate and even like such brainless films as Phantom Menace, Die Another Day, Pirates 2, and anything Michael Bay did after The Rock. Then they can turn around put Trainspotting on their top 5.

In other words, know when to shut off your brain at the movies and give in to the simpleton kid in you that just wants explosions and hot chicks.

I can't wait for this TF movie, despite the fact that I hate so much that I've read about it, and that's because my brain will be nowhere nearby.

If this isn't a Quoted For Truth moment, I don't know what is.

Honestly, people, they're movies. They're not meant to enlighten, they're just meant to entertain.

And Mr. Bay sure does a great job keeping us entertained. This new Transformers movie is going to be great! I got 8 days left to see it. Im so anxious!

Riotflea wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Phategod1 wrote:"I go to the movies to be entertained."A common excuse for enjoying (and admitting to enjoying) ****.

You are a hundred percent right.

So what?

I don't care if it's **** because I make the choice to leave my brain behind (lower the bar if you will) when I go to such movies, or pop them into the player, usually with heavy amounts of beer and maybe some nachos involved.

You see where I'm going with this?

If you're unable to put your brain on hold, Citizen Kane is waiting.

Yeah, but personally, I feel I'm being a dick if I were to shut my brain off that far.
I say that for the simple reason that, if enough people do as you do, then the message is sent that "merely **** movies are ok to make from now on".

And really, looking at the last few years o' cinematic poop... I'd say the trees of such thinking have definitely released their fruit, splattering all over at the base, seeping into the ground to grow a forestful of them.

Excellent point my friend. This franchise is truly in the wrong hands. Maybe in 10 years it can be repaired, or just go back to animation.

Shadowman wrote:

Coolyfett wrote:It actually features Star Trek characters that the fanbase knows. What Bay did to Transformers is hard to identify.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, who are most of those characters? Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, Megatron, Starscream, Frenzy, Skorponok, Brawl, Blackout, Bonecrusher, Barricade. I've never even HEARD of any of those characters. bay just made them all up on the spot I guess.

I heard of Prime, Bumblebee, Frenzy, Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, Megs & Starscream. The rest of those bots are bays home made creations.

Bonecrusher sucked and should be a constructicon

Blackout should be Vortex

Never heard of a Brawl

Barricade is an evil Prowl, but not actually Prowl, that sucks majorky

Do the it right with the REAL Transformers.

I want see Rolling on the Floor, so TF3 is hopefully his last movie.

Shadowman wrote:

Coolyfett wrote:Yea I can agree with that man. His movies are like long music videos with no music. I think someone else should have got the Tf Franchise that would do it right.

No Flaming Please

I think Michael Bay did do TF right. It's a big flashy action flick with robots that turn into cars, it was, in fact, more than I had expected. And in any case, doing what I assume is your definition of "right" wouldn't be a good idea; who wants to watch two hours of blocky cartoon robots shoot at each other for whatever reason? The whole movie would have been geared towards kids, remember that. If you thought the movie was brainless, think of what would happen if Bay had done it more like G1.

Assuming makes you the first 3 letters at the beginning of this sentence man.

Blocky cartoon?? huh?

Gear towards kids?? huh?

So you hate G1? What is this G1 you refer to?