The Energon Pub

Loki120 wrote:Bay's movies may not be deep thinkers, but then neither are the most of the rest of those people in the club (and if one person comes to me and say Georgie Lucas, I'm going to bean in the back of the head with a copy of Episode 1). Simple fact is Bay's over-the-top approach has got him where he is. And the simple fact is, a part of being a director is to do the kinds of things that Bay does. As a director, you have to know what you want, and then go for it. And before it's said, I'm not a Bay Apologists, so you can shove that one. In fact, I don't even like half his movies. I dislike Armageddon, never bothered with Pearl Harbor, the Rock...is tolerated, and I hate Bad Boys with a freakin' passion. Even Will Smith couldn't make up for the sheer SUCK that is Martin Lawrence. There, I said it. But the simple fact is I dislike these movies, not because of Bay, but because...well, it's freakin' Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Bad Boys...how many explanations do you need?

General Magnus wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Bay's movies may not be deep thinkers, but then neither are the most of the rest of those people in the club (and if one person comes to me and say Georgie Lucas, I'm going to bean in the back of the head with a copy of Episode 1). Simple fact is Bay's over-the-top approach has got him where he is. And the simple fact is, a part of being a director is to do the kinds of things that Bay does. As a director, you have to know what you want, and then go for it. And before it's said, I'm not a Bay Apologists, so you can shove that one. In fact, I don't even like half his movies. I dislike Armageddon, never bothered with Pearl Harbor, the Rock...is tolerated, and I hate Bad Boys with a freakin' passion. Even Will Smith couldn't make up for the sheer SUCK that is Martin Lawrence. There, I said it. But the simple fact is I dislike these movies, not because of Bay, but because...well, it's freakin' Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Bad Boys...how many explanations do you need?

I enjooyed Armageddon and saw it a crapload of times. But then again opinions differ.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Having paid for Ratatouille to see Bay's latest effort to hold a camera (you know, an ILM friend says Bay can't even get insurance for his cameras because he breaks so many) I feel no sorrow, only pity. Maybe when he screws over the Dinobots and introduces Arcee (voiced by Halle Barry) people will come round. "Me Grimlock say 'Wus up lil' bitches?'"

Phenotype wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:The way he steamrolled over ILM and company for his Bayformers made me lose respect I didn't even have for him.

Dude, what are you talking about? In fact, what is anyone who uses the term "Bayformers" talking about? Do you honestly think that Bay designed the Transformers himself? Oh, suddenly inbetween directing, editing, and all of the other stuff he does he suddenly learned how to be a graphic artist? Give me a break! ILM designed the Transformers, all Bay ever did was say in an interview that he wanted the Transformations to be "kinetic" with "hundreds of parts moving all at once". And who knows, that might not have even been his idea, maybe the studio came up with that idea or maybe Speilberg, or maybe some kid at ILM. You don't know. What I do know is that Bay DID NOT design the Transformers himself so don't blame him because you didn't like the designs, ILM showed him some designs, he liked him, you can't really fault him for that. Lots of other people (myself included) like them too.

Loki120 wrote:Bay's movies may not be deep thinkers, but then neither are the most of the rest of those people in the club (and if one person comes to me and say Georgie Lucas, I'm going to bean in the back of the head with a copy of Episode 1). Simple fact is Bay's over-the-top approach has got him where he is. And the simple fact is, a part of being a director is to do the kinds of things that Bay does. As a director, you have to know what you want, and then go for it. And before it's said, I'm not a Bay Apologists, so you can shove that one. In fact, I don't even like half his movies. I dislike Armageddon, never bothered with Pearl Harbor, the Rock...is tolerated, and I hate Bad Boys with a freakin' passion. Even Will Smith couldn't make up for the sheer SUCK that is Martin Lawrence. There, I said it. But the simple fact is I dislike these movies, not because of Bay, but because...well, it's freakin' Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Bad Boys...how many explanations do you need?

Loki120 wrote:Bay's movies may not be deep thinkers, but then neither are the most of the rest of those people in the club

Mr.RobotoAutoMan wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Bay's movies may not be deep thinkers, but then neither are the most of the rest of those people in the club (and if one person comes to me and say Georgie Lucas, I'm going to bean in the back of the head with a copy of Episode 1). Simple fact is Bay's over-the-top approach has got him where he is. And the simple fact is, a part of being a director is to do the kinds of things that Bay does. As a director, you have to know what you want, and then go for it. And before it's said, I'm not a Bay Apologists, so you can shove that one. In fact, I don't even like half his movies. I dislike Armageddon, never bothered with Pearl Harbor, the Rock...is tolerated, and I hate Bad Boys with a freakin' passion. Even Will Smith couldn't make up for the sheer SUCK that is Martin Lawrence. There, I said it. But the simple fact is I dislike these movies, not because of Bay, but because...well, it's freakin' Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Bad Boys...how many explanations do you need?

you hate will and martin is that what your saying? so you dont like martin or fresh prince of bel-air? whats wrong with you.

I disagree... James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, and Tim Burton have all tried to make films with deeper meanings... For example, the original Terminator films, Aliens, Abyss, LOTR, Back to the Future, Contact, Ed Wood. Heck, even Spielberg has made 'thinking' films (Duel, Close Encounters, Schindler's List).

Loki120 wrote:

I disagree... James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, and Tim Burton have all tried to make films with deeper meanings... For example, the original Terminator films, Aliens, Abyss, LOTR, Back to the Future, Contact, Ed Wood. Heck, even Spielberg has made 'thinking' films (Duel, Close Encounters, Schindler's List).

I'll agree with you on Schindler's List, Contact and even to a certain extent Close Encounters. But the rest are pretty straight forward, at best popcorn flicks. Albeit some really great popcorn flicks. I just don't find a whole lot of deep inner meaning in Back to the Future, or Terminator.

I also didn't say that there weren't exceptions. You're just not going to find a whole lot of movies with a real deep inner context that's a major blockbuster.

And Duel???? Are you serious?

Robzimus Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:

I disagree... James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, and Tim Burton have all tried to make films with deeper meanings... For example, the original Terminator films, Aliens, Abyss, LOTR, Back to the Future, Contact, Ed Wood. Heck, even Spielberg has made 'thinking' films (Duel, Close Encounters, Schindler's List).

I'll agree with you on Schindler's List, Contact and even to a certain extent Close Encounters. But the rest are pretty straight forward, at best popcorn flicks. Albeit some really great popcorn flicks. I just don't find a whole lot of deep inner meaning in Back to the Future, or Terminator.

I also didn't say that there weren't exceptions. You're just not going to find a whole lot of movies with a real deep inner context that's a major blockbuster.

And Duel???? Are you serious?

Well, I think Duel (for a thriller) is a lot more intelligent than the rubbish that's made nowadays. At least it makes you think (to uncover the riddle)!

As for the first 2 Terminator films, and Back to the Future? 'No deep inner meaning"????... Well, I think ANY film that deals with temporal anomalies in time travel is deep... like Donnie Darko for example! Also, The Abyss is exactly the same (thematically) as Contact!

The point I was making is that these Directors have the ability to do big blockbusters with a deeper context! Compare 'Aliens', say, with 'Starship Troopers'!

Loki120 wrote:

General Magnus wrote:I enjooyed Armageddon and saw it a crapload of times. But then again opinions differ.

And when I first seen it, I liked it too. I wasn't until after I bought the movie on DVD that I began to realize just...well, lacking and cliched it all was. But that's a fault of mine. I'm just pointing out that just because someone hates a particular movie, doesn't make the director the son of evil.

Blackout  wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:Soundwave: "Bay apologists eject!"
@Autobot032 -
Dude I'm not about to get into another argument, worship Bay all you like I don't have the energy...

You don't want to get into another argument, yet you can't resist making little snide comments like Soundwave: "Bay apologists eject!". Either debate reasonably with people and accept that they are entitled to their opinion, or walk away. It's really that simple.

Robzimus Prime wrote:Okay, just to clarify... I don't think that Terminator, Aliens, etc are "THINKING" films. I never said that... But I DID say I think, for big budget blockbusters, these films have a "DEEPER CONTEXT" than most popcorn flicks! There's no way that any of these films are like "Hamlet", but there's "more to them than meets the eye!"

And NO - I don't think that just because a film deals with time travel or horror means it's deep... What I'm saying is the anomalies and existential questions that these particular films raise are amazing, when you consider their simple entertainment value and objectives!!! That's why they are classics!

Oh and btw, to see what I meant by The Abyss... watch the 'Director's Cut' - which is what James Cameron really intended it to be!