The Energon Pub

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???

You can ask on a forum
Or you can rent/download one of his older movies and see for yourself which will tell loads more then a couple of forum posts...

Bay's an action movie director known for big car chases, huge explosions, and all that kind of summer blockbuster stuff that Speilberg originally set the standard for. With the exception of The Island, most of his movies raked in a great deal of cash. Prior to that, he worked in television - he also created the Got Milk? commercial campaign.

But what I am thinking? Commence the crapfest...

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

hes not bad at all just old.

pearl harbor, and the island i havnt seen but amragaden i own and like it very much

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.

EDIT: Ignore the John Malkovich mention or my implausibilities example. Why the hell do I keep thinking Con Air is a Michael Bay film? Sadly, now that I've been reminded it was directed by Simon West and not Bay I like Bay even less.

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.

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.

As you have heard, Bay is a specific type of director who enjoys action and explosions. This works with movies when the premise of the movie and the actors in the movie mesh up good with that fact (as it did with The Rock and Armageddon), but it fails when the premise is something different (such as a movie about Transformers that come to Earth).

I have nothing personal against Michael Bay, I just don't think he is even the average (let alone great) director to being doing a TF live movie.

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.

Comic-books are regarded as an art-form too. Nobody expects all comic-books to be the next MAUS or Cerebus. Nobody even expects them all to be written by Alan Moore, Warren Ellis, or Garth Ennis. When a comic book treads over the same cliches or the dialogue is crap people don't go "Oh, but the art is colorful and there's a lot of action! Seriously, it's just meant to be entertaining!'. Yes, it's meant to entertain, but lowering the bar doesn't automatically make it good.

AbsumZer0 wrote:When a comic book treads over the same cliches or the dialogue is crap people don't go "Oh, but the art is colorful and there's a lot of action! Seriously, it's just meant to be entertaining!'.

Err, yes, yes people do. Different strokes for different folks, if you will.

I know many a comic reader who is far more interested in art style and presentation than the dialogue or stories presented there-in. And while I truely appreciate a well written story, I'll drop a book for bad art faster than I'll drop one for lack luster writing.

I enjoy my high-art, in any medium. My favorite comic, if you made me chose, is probably Alan Moore's Promethea. My favorite movies include cinematic masterpieces like Fight Club, anything by Kurosawa, and the like.

However, I also love low brow comics with great presentation ala anything with Deadpool and, you guessed it, Transformers(and yes, any Transformer comic is pure,unadulterated cheese. Anyone who thinks they're well written stories is fooling themselves). And for movies, I throughly enjoyed ID4, The Island, and Bad Boys II.

Srsly folks, some of you really need to get off your high pretentious horses. Just because something isn't high art doesn't make it bad. And anyone who ever thought Transformers on the big screen, no matter who was directing, producing, or acting in it, was going to be ANYTHING other than explosions and car chases is naive to a disturbing degree. Transformers always has, and always will be, pure popcorn.

AbsumZer0 wrote:

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.

Comic-books are regarded as an art-form too. Nobody expects all comic-books to be the next MAUS or Cerebus

Um, or good. I think "most people" find/believe comic books to be even more mindless and silly than even the worst movies. That's why critics warn an audience of a "comic books movie", because the general themes are often silly.

The challenge here (from the production point of view) is guessing the right expectation of a general audience to bring in the most money. Are they going to come to see a G1 accurate backstory, or are they coming to see car robots in an action rollercoaster movie? I think we all know which will be more successful - whether we want it or not.

Is that wrong? Objectively, I don't think so.

Spiderman I and II are chocked full of silly cliches. The general audience didn't care. They don't expect Spiderman to be serious. They want to see some action. A lot here seem to think the audience won't overlook the non-G1 elements. I doubt it. They see Transformers as less serious than a guy in silly panajmas who can climb buildings for some inexplicable reason.

Archibald Witwicky wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:When a comic book treads over the same cliches or the dialogue is crap people don't go "Oh, but the art is colorful and there's a lot of action! Seriously, it's just meant to be entertaining!'.

Err, yes, yes people do. Different strokes for different folks, if you will.

I know many a comic reader who is far more interested in art style and presentation than the dialogue or stories presented there-in. And while I truely appreciate a well written story, I'll drop a book for bad art faster than I'll drop one for lack luster writing.

I enjoy my high-art, in any medium. My favorite comic, if you made me chose, is probably Alan Moore's Promethea. My favorite movies include cinematic masterpieces like Fight Club, anything by Kurosawa, and the like.

However, I also love low brow comics with great presentation ala anything with Deadpool and, you guessed it, Transformers(and yes, any Transformer comic is pure,unadulterated cheese. Anyone who thinks they're well written stories is fooling themselves). And for movies, I throughly enjoyed ID4, The Island, and Bad Boys II.

Srsly folks, some of you really need to get off your high pretentious horses. Just because something isn't high art doesn't make it bad. And anyone who ever thought Transformers on the big screen, no matter who was directing, producing, or acting in it, was going to be ANYTHING other than explosions and car chases is naive to a disturbing degree. Transformers always has, and always will be, pure popcorn.

That's my point. It doesn't make it bad but it doesn't automatically make it good, either. Maybe you associate with a lot of comic geeks or 8th graders but most people I know and the people who populate the boards I've visited are generally willing to admit that colorful art doesn't make a comic-book a good comic. They're not ashamed of the fact that they buy it, enjoy it, and they're not going to throw a hissy-fit when you rib them over it. For some reason that isn't true when it comes to films. People are reluctant to admit that they really enjoy movies that really aren't that good. Yes, Highlander 2 and Van Helsing were popcorn flicks. Guess what? So were Highlander 1 and Desperado. Highlander 2 and Van Helsing still suck by comparison.

The Transformers comics aren't great by any means. I happily admit to the fact that the only reason I buy them is because of the brand and character familiarity. The same is true back when I used to read all the X-Men comics. With their convoluted storylines and characters constantly dying and resurrecting the same can probably be said of all the major comic books. If you defend them as 'good' solely on the basis that they're meant to entertain and not raise the medium to a new level, rather than judging their individial merits, then you're missing the point.

Milanion wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:

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.

Comic-books are regarded as an art-form too. Nobody expects all comic-books to be the next MAUS or Cerebus

Um, or good. I think "most people" find/believe comic books to be even more mindless and silly than even the worst movies. That's why critics warn an audience of a "comic books movie", because the general themes are often silly.

The challenge here (from the production point of view) is guessing the right expectation of a general audience to bring in the most money. Are they going to come to see a G1 accurate backstory, or are they coming to see car robots in an action rollercoaster movie? I think we all know which will be more successful - whether we want it or not.

Is that wrong? Objectively, I don't think so.

Spiderman I and II are chocked full of silly cliches. The general audience didn't care. They don't expect Spiderman to be serious. They want to see some action. A lot here seem to think the audience won't overlook the non-G1 elements. I doubt it. They see Transformers as less serious than a guy in silly panajmas who can climb buildings for some inexplicable reason.

Um... nice tangent?

Anyway, what makes you think they couldn't have made a 'car robots in an action rollercoaster movie' that also has a 'G1 accurate backstory'? What makes the 2 so incompatible?

And yes, a lot of the public do consider comic-books to be silly and mindless. That doesn't make it a positive expectation, does it? Why should the filmmakers pander to expectations rather than raise the bar and exceed those expectations? That's what they did wth the first 2 X-Men films and Spider-Man. People going to see a goofy, hideously cliched movie resembling something like the cartoons were pleasantly surprised and they didn't have to completely reinvent the mythologies and characters to do it.

AbsumZer0 wrote:Um... nice tangent?

Anyway, what makes you think they couldn't have made a 'car robots in an action rollercoaster movie' that also has a 'G1 accurate backstory'? What makes the 2 so incompatible?

And yes, a lot of the public do consider comic-books to be silly and mindless. That doesn't make it a positive expectation, does it? Why should the filmmakers pander to expectations rather than raise the bar and exceed those expectations? That's what they did wth the first 2 X-Men films and Spider-Man. People going to see a goofy, hideously cliched movie resembling something like the cartoons were pleasantly surprised and they didn't have to completely reinvent the mythologies and characters to do it.

I felt the tangent was neccessary, because the change of subject to comic books was a bad tangent in itself - as Archi also seemed to notice.

Spiderman was silly and cliched, but it had good production value and brand awareness. X-men was silly and cliched, but it had good production value and brand awareness. Transformers will be silly and cliched, but have good production value, yet not as much brand awareness. All three are meant to entertain, not change the sociopolitical landscape.

Transformers got more of a revamp looks wise, but then again, it's been revamped so many times it's easy to loose count. That is not a dealth knell for the franchise, if anything, it's a strong point.

Shadowman and Zarak have a good point. This is designed to entertain, not enlighten.

Milanion wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:Um... nice tangent?

Anyway, what makes you think they couldn't have made a 'car robots in an action rollercoaster movie' that also has a 'G1 accurate backstory'? What makes the 2 so incompatible?

And yes, a lot of the public do consider comic-books to be silly and mindless. That doesn't make it a positive expectation, does it? Why should the filmmakers pander to expectations rather than raise the bar and exceed those expectations? That's what they did wth the first 2 X-Men films and Spider-Man. People going to see a goofy, hideously cliched movie resembling something like the cartoons were pleasantly surprised and they didn't have to completely reinvent the mythologies and characters to do it.

I felt the tangent was neccessary, because the change of subject to comic books was a bad tangent in itself - as Archi also seemed to notice.

Spiderman was silly and cliched, but it had good production value and brand awareness. X-men was silly and cliched, but it had good production value and brand awareness. Transformers will be silly and cliched, but have good production value, yet not as much brand awareness. All three are meant to entertain, not change the sociopolitical landscape.

Transformers got more of a revamp looks wise, but then again, it's been revamped so many times it's easy to loose count. That is not a dealth knell for the franchise, if anything, it's a strong point.

Shadowman and Zarak have a good point. This is designed to entertain, not enlighten.

I mentioned comic-books because they, like films, are often referred to as 'an art form' and unlike films people typically don't get all defensive and act like their favorite comics are automatically good simply because they're not trying to hold themselves to a certain standard.

Being designed to entertain rather than 'enlighten' shouldn't be considered a free-pass to shovel dreck. The recent Punisher movie was complete ****. I've never read a single Punisher comic so I don't know whether it was true to the source material, but regardless, it was ****. It was meant to be be mindless entertainment but that doesn't make it a good film.

AbsumZer0 wrote:I mentioned comic-books because it, like films, are often referred to as 'an art form' and unlike films people typically don't get all defensive and act like their favorite comics are automatically good simply because they're not trying to hold themselves to a certain standard.

Being designed to entertain rather than 'enlighten' shouldn't be considered a free-pass to shovel dreck. The recent Punisher movie was complete ****. I've never read a single Punisher comic so I don't know whether it was true to the source material, but regardless, it was ****. It was meant to be be mindless entertainment but that doesn't make it a good film.

Have you seen Little Miss Sunshine yet? That was a nice little film, one of the better recent films I've seen since Sideways and Lost in Translation. If you haven't seen it, or any of the three, check them out. Every year, there are two or three good films like that.

Then there are action films. I think we all want TF to be one of the better mindless action films, but it was never going to be anything but a mindless action film, no matter who was directing. Its job is to entertain, and we won't know for several months if it did a good job or not.

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.

Someone said this in another forum and I debated heavily to make it my sig or not. But it seems right for this moment. "I go to the movies to be entertained."A common excuse for enjoying (and admitting to enjoying) ****.

Milanion wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:I mentioned comic-books because it, like films, are often referred to as 'an art form' and unlike films people typically don't get all defensive and act like their favorite comics are automatically good simply because they're not trying to hold themselves to a certain standard.

Being designed to entertain rather than 'enlighten' shouldn't be considered a free-pass to shovel dreck. The recent Punisher movie was complete ****. I've never read a single Punisher comic so I don't know whether it was true to the source material, but regardless, it was ****. It was meant to be be mindless entertainment but that doesn't make it a good film.

Have you seen Little Miss Sunshine yet? That was a nice little film, one of the better recent films I've seen since Sideways and Lost in Translation. If you haven't seen it, or any of the three, check them out. Every year, there are two or three good films like that.

Then there are action films. I think we all want TF to be one of the better mindless action films, but it was never going to be anything but a mindless action film, no matter who was directing. Its job is to entertain, and we won't know for several months if it did a good job or not.

Why Does Transformer Have to be Mindless action? Spiderman 1 & 2 are intelligent films as is Batman Begins, and X2 to a degree, Hell Even the Hulk is a passable intelligent movie People tend to forget that action, horror, and even comedies can be intelligent, and character driven. Honestly I could care less if Optimus and Megatron looked like flash animated Stickfigures as long as They got there characters right and added some depth instead they've been made even more cookie Cutter. As for the topic The difference between Micheal Bay and Paul WS Anderson is about a extra $100,000 the studios give Bay. That's about it. That and Paul actually has the cajones to show his female stars Nude. (Blown Opportunity to show Johansson's, Johanssons)

Last time...
'Deep Impact' is your G1 TFtM.
'Armaggeddon' is your G1 TFtM on Bay.
Any questions?

This PSA is brought to you by the Council for a Bay Awareness.


EDIT: you can sub 'Lethal Weapon 2' for 'Deep Impact' and 'Bad Boys 2' for 'Armaggeddon' if it will help.

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?


Somewhere along the lines there was this hang up of liking **** movies to be a bad thing. And what's even funnier is, if you like it, it ceases to be ****.

Believe it or not, I have my standards as well. Ghost Rider did not pass the test, which is too bad because I really wanted to like it. Van Helsing did not pass the test. Highlander 2 did not pass the test. I Robot did not pass the test. Matrix Revolutions did not pass the test. Matrix Reloaded only passed because of Monica Belluci and the freeway scene. See where I'm coming from? Those things saved the movie. They were all that was needed.

Rare gifts like Batman Begins and the Spiderman and X-men flicks, save 3, were not the rule in this case. The rule in this case is admitting something is a live action cartoon and going with it, like any James Bond flick (though even some of those were pretty bad), or Pirates 2, or the recent star wars movies.

The standard for me is, if a movie knows its silly and goes with it, it passes the test. If a movie thinks it's serious, but it's full of silly stuff, it does not. The rare gifts cited above, were silly and serious because the focus stayed on the characters, so we then accepted the silly stuff during serious moments. Failure movies expect you to accept serious stuff in silly context as if the real drama was the seriousness of the silly stuff. If you can follow that, give yourself a cookie. In other words the oh so serious issue of being the devil's messenger against your will, with the always the same love story thrown in. No character drama, just exploits that mean nothing on their own accord.

I can put my brain on hold when I'm not made to care about something that doesn't matter, unless the tongue is firmly in the cheek. That's what it's all about, and Bay does that. Okay, the Island was a bit of a let down, but Armageddon is still the classic tongue in cheek Bay.

I'm repeating myself now. See my earlier post. If you're unable to put your brain on hold, Citizen Kane is waiting.

Micheal Bay is a James Cameron wanna be.

Micheal Bay movies give me migranes because he can't hold the
camera still for longer than 2 seconds without doing a 360 circle around lead actors and then jump cutting all over the
place.

I like hot girls, car chases, and explosions as much as the next guy but is asking to much to let see the hot girls, and
enjoy the car chase and the explosions without moving the camera all over the place?!

Cyberstrike wrote:Micheal Bay movies give me migranes because he can't hold the
camera still for longer than 2 seconds without doing a 360 circle around lead actors and then jump cutting all over the
place.

I like hot girls, car chases, and explosions as much as the next guy but is asking to much to let see the hot girls, and
enjoy the car chase and the explosions without moving the camera all over the place?!

QFT.
Somebody needs to remind the man to take his Ritalin.

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.

WARNING: GODAWFUL SPELLING ALERT

everything, every peice of art, every movie, has good and bad points, its up to hte viewer to pick out the underlying things beneath that may seem 'brainless' and 'crappy' to some.

For example: I personally prefer Micron Legends-Superlink-Galaxy Force to G1, hell even the dub where Blur is named Wally i like more then G1. Because i have to think to see the underlying (even if the creators didnt intend for it to be tehre) reasons, motives, and desires for the characters.

Phantom Menace is another example of this. You can go watch eps: IV-V and have the things just out there, or you can watch PM and decide for yourself what is the underlying events and motives in it.

But dont go by what i said, listen to hte smiley --->