by KoH4711 » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:09 pm
Y'know, it's a good point. I don't think the fact that Bay is the "Director To Mock D'Jour" really helps, but I'm sure there would have been complaints no matter WHO did it.
Take the first Spiderman. Most people agree it's one of the better comic book movies ever made, even with its faults(Green Goblin Ranger). But there are fans who won't even watch the movie, and tried to make a "real" version. Because they didn't like the story, or the actors? Nope. Because Spiderman had organic web shooters. Nevermind the fact that organic web shooters make more sense than a poor high school/college kid being able to afford a steady supply of chemicals, not to mention working out the formula... but that wasn't the way the original was, so it was "bad".
You could probably create a party game based on what fans would've found wrong with any potential director.
Brad Bird? Great director, great writer. Someone would've pointed out that he's never done live action, and probably would have said his version would be too kiddy.
Speilberg? Someone would say War of the Worlds was horrible, and we'd still get the anger over the "boy and his car" storyline.
If they'd gone the route of a lot of comic movies, and picked a director with a strong background of character-driven, low budget films, someone would point out they'd never done effects work.
I think Bay was a pretty solid choice, and while there are some scenes where the tone is off, they pale in comparison to when he nails it. The "Autobots Arrive" sequence, for example, is great. I wish there would be less camera movement during the battle scenes, but that's not just a Michael Bay problem, as you can see by watching just about any action movie nowadays.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
