Killing Michael Bay

[Alex Taylor]

http://www.killingmichaelbay.50megs.com/

This short is hilarious! It's about two independent filmmakers who try to kill Michael Bay and put a stop to his big budget fiascos. Right up our alley ;) Not to mention it looks fantastic!

[Curtis T. Stoeber]

I think the movie would have been more effective if it were two disgruntled fans disappointed in spending money to see Michael Bay movies. Technically it was OK. Even though the compression was a horrendous blocky mess, you could tell that most shots were bluescreen. It did have it's moments, though. Like in the beginning with the dartboard (not the dartboard scene at the end). I liked that shot.

[Nigel Moore]

At first I thought "WTF is Michael Bay?", so I searched Google.

Hmmmm...I liked The Rock & Bad Boys, although I'm curiously underwhelmed at the prospect of Bad Boys II

I saw Armageddon ... it was excreble (cries of "armageddon outta here")

I read the Reviews of Pearl Harbour ... oh dear. But I found that there's actually a Pearl Harbour gift set. Presumably it's meant as a gift for someone you don't like very much.

[Yang Wen]

So are you guys against his cinematorgraphy style or just how bad the storyline in his movies are?? I personally think the cinematography in Armageddon was pretty damn good, as was Pearl Harbour.. I'd like to see some DV filmmaker challenge that.

[Imran Zaidi]

And you can't deny that the action sequences in Bad Boys II are some of the most intense to date, and the style in direction of the movie as a whole was pretty darn well done. Much as I hate to admit I like anything about a hollywood blockbuster sequel, plot-lines aside (heh heh), the Directing and Editing in Bad Boys II was pretty impressive.

[Nigel Moore]

The cinematography in Armageddon was fine. The plot stank, and as for the acting...ham and cheese.

Steve Buscemi, what on earth were you thinking?

[Curtis T. Stoeber]

Armeggedon was a horrible, horrible movie. I just don't care for his directing style. It is very cookie cutter. I also do not like how he has his sound mixed. Very loud and you get listening fatigue quickly. He just bombards you with constant crap. He has his movies edited with quick cuts where there doesn't need to be quick cuts... and dramatic camera sweeps (like in Bad Boys 2) for no reason. His movies always tend to be too long as well. I'd say almost anyone could direct a Michael Bay quality movie if they were surrounded by the same high dollar people on the set Michael Bay surrounds himself with. I'd say Michael is one or two steps above present day George Lucas.

I did enjoy Crimson Tide. That was a good one.

[Imran Zaidi]

Wow this really shows how subjective this sort of thing can be, and how two opinions about the same thing can be polar opposites, while stating the same reasons.

One more reason why there is no real 'good' or 'bad'. Only preferences...

I didn't think the story of Armageddon was all that great, but I loved the directing style, and the way that it represented a very 'Americana' kind of feel in the dramatic slo-mo moments. Reminded me of old Coca cola print ads from decades ago. I thought it was very successful at what it was trying to do. But again, just an opinion.

[Keith Loh]

I think Michael Bay is a good technical director. He knows how to put a shot together, but I DETEST DETEST the editing of the Bruckheimer films. They are just CHOP CHOP CHOP. I really cannot tell what is going on. I'm 32 and I grew up with action films but really Bay's movies (and Simon West, etc.) look like they were edited in a blender. Multiple camera setups thrown together purely for staccato rhythm. Maybe he shot reams of beautiful footage where the action makes sense, where shots lead into each other logically, but you wouldn't know that from the end product. As far as visual storytelling goes, I think he stinks.

[Imran Zaidi]

I'm guessing Bruckheimer, being the self-important fellow that he appears to be, probably reserves final cut for himself. Definitely something that muddles up the works, I'm sure...

[Michael Robinson]

Nothing new under the sun. I think Bruckheimer picked Bay because his reel probably looked a lot like Tony Scott. Or Bay uses the same DP Scott uses?

Saw a preview of a Bruckheimer film that is more drama than action-epic. Made me chuckle...the guy is branching out (I think he's got a TV project too).

[Jaime Valles]

Speaking of which... Tony Scott directed Crimson Tide, not Michael Bay. Just nitpicking ;)

I think Mr. Bay knows how to operate a camera, and manages to get decent enough performances out of his actors. But people need to realize that directors aren't just cinematographers, so the visuals in the movie are only a part of what the director "directs". Do Michael Bay movies look good? Yup. Sound good? Uh huh. Leave me cheering at the end? Not really. Not because of the cinematography, or the lighting, or even the acting. Because the scripts are not that good. It really is the most important part of the movie. It's the blueprint. If you make a very pretty building out of blueprints from an engineer who hasn't got a clue, the building will fall, regardless of how well the colors of the tempered glass match the hedges along the sides.

Story is everything. Michael Bay may be a genius with cameras, but if the scripts suck, the movies will suck, no matter how good he is. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

[Imran Zaidi]

Yeah, but who goes to see a blockbuster action extravaganza for the depth of story? That's what indie film is for. That's where you get the meat and potatoes... We've all known for years that big-budget studio movies are usually formulated, low-risk, easy on the brain kind of stuff, created with the sole purpose of extreme marketability. But we go see them because of the eye candy... That's all these movies are there for. Even the actors and directors involved in them refer to them as 'safe pictures'.

But, on occasion, we are treated with a big budget studio film that actually turns out to be of a higher quality. I put Soderbergh's studio films in that category. The studio-friendly formulaic storylines may be there, but they have an extra style and intrigue to them. I attribute that to Soderbergh's style of interpretation. Movies like Ocean's 11 and Out of Sight would have just stunk if done by most studio-friendly directors because the story lines were only so-so. Soderbergh is one of those cross-over guys. He doesn't want to be pigeon-holed into just studio films or just indie films. He does both, in a non-snooty way. Movies are movies, all with a different purpose for each.

But again, all of this is just opinion. Most notable is the fact that these people are making movies that are viewed and appreciated by millions.

[Alex Taylor]

I agree with Imran.. I've always put movies into two categories: those that are entertainment and those that are art. The majority of movies made with big budgets are not attempting to sabotage film culture or the advancement of film as an artistic medium, but are rather trying to entertain the masses much like TV or candy. I think they're relatively harmless.

The other type of movies are films that push the limit and make you think - it just so happens that the majority of these films are small indies, made with low budgets because they don't attract the big shots, simply because of the nature of the industry.

Occasionally we get people like Soderbergh who straddle the line, and that's great. I think we're going to start to see more and more people like him who are able to direct indies but also cater to the masses and get behind big features. I really admire Soderbergh for that; he's not afraid of making Ocean's 11 and Erin Brokovich, he just promises himself that he'll do the best he can and try to keep supporting the indie community along the way.

[Keith Loh]

Sorry, I call bulltwaddle on separating blockbusters with 'smart' indie films. There is no reason at all for a big budget film to not have a smart script or to have plotholes or gaps in logic or characters acting stupidly. To people ENJOY seeing stupidity? No, they want to be thrilled, they want to see things blow up, dudes getting kicked and bullets flying. None of this means that the story has to be written for the lowest common denominator. I don't mean give Meryl Streep a machinegun (though that image does sound appealing), but give these people scripts that don't insult your intelligence or ask the audience to shrug their way through threadbare devices. So often I see big budget craporamas that don't even stand up to their own universes that they built in the first act. Saying that audiences don't want to trust their own senses is like saying that people at McDonalds can't smell rotting food.