It’s like that scene in David Fincher’s “Se7en” when Morgan Freeman says, “If this man turns out to be Satan – I mean the devil himself – that might meet our expectations.” Michael Bay is an incompetent douche, yes; but is he a talentless, incompetent douche? No. And here we go. On the second episode of my former podcast, “Experts and Intermediates” (listen to it here) we watched 4 of Bay’s films, then went and saw the first “Transformers.” It was worse than torture. We shared our findings on the show, where we used terms like “Bay-mo” which is a slow-mo shot that also circles the characters while they stand up and look off into the distance. We theorized that Bay can’t actually read, and is brought in only to blow things up during the action scenes. Even so, given the number of explosions in his movies, that still makes him the hardest working man in Hollywood.
Michael Bay doesn't ask if he CAN blow something up, only how GOOD can he blow it up?
I saw the first “Transformers” and it wasn’t very good. Shia Lebouf and John Turturro are awesome and funny, but the action was terrible and the final battle was lame. Still, I enjoyed the movie, which I saw once and have no plans ever to see again. So it is with “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” except that Bay strays even more to the extremes this time. The bad dialogue and plotting are much worse than the first movie, while there is literally tons more action. This may be the biggest movie ever. Overall, I hated the movie and I really liked it, too.
But now I read all these reviews and it’s as though critics have just woken up from a Bay-nap. They seem disproportionately outraged at this movie. It has a 21% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to a 57% rating for the first one, and there is no way in hell the first movie is almost
Push-up?
3x as good as its sequel. I’m fine with people disliking the movie because of its bad dialogue, and in particular its really uninteresting robots. In a movie called and about “Transformers” it would be nice if the movie didn’t view its central characters as a joke. That is, it would be nice if it tried to establish them as something other than walking punch-lines who occasionally fight. You would think they might have some perspective about the war they’re in. You’d think they might talk to the evil robots at some point, even as they’re fighting. You’d think these robots would conjure something interesting to say! Also, if you’ve always wondered what it would look like for a film camera to have sex with Megan Fox, now’s your chance to find out. This chick may have the world’s greatest publicist, but even they couldn’t stop the assault.
These dudes sucked. I've heard their roles weren't scripted and were just improvised by two comedians. Fail.
So, I’m fine with that criticism, but I’m less impressed by critics complaining about the price tag of the movie – which is $200 million, not cheap. Know what other movies weren’t cheap? “Titanic” – $200 million in 1997 – that’d be like spending $300 million now, which “Spiderman 3” almost did – $258 million – and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” did do. I don’t recall this much complaining when it came out. Guess what else cost $200 million? “Quantum of Solace,” that most recent and most disappointing Bond movie (which 65% of critics liked, for reasons which predate both logic and thought). It’s sortof a Fielder’s Choice of which of these movies is better (aside from “Titanic,” which IS better) but the point is, “Transformers” movies get a whole hell of a lot for their money. I’ve never seen so many effects shots, or so much…muchness!
This scene was completely awesome, though. Hands down the best in the movie.
Then there’s the criticism that Bay is singlehandedly taking the cinema straight to hell, which is such a near-sighted statement to make when his former partner, Jerry Bruckheimer (read: Hitler) has a CGI / 3-D action bonanza about Guinea Pigs coming out in less than a month. And let’s not forget epic frat boy-cum-director Brett Ratner, whose movies are downright unwatchable. Are action movies getting out of control? Well, yes and no. In 2007, we got the 4th “Die Hard” movie which was fantastic. Last year, we had “The Dark Knight” and “Iron Man.” Will Smith makes one every now and again, and they’re okay. Later this year, the man who brought us both “Aliens” and the “Terminator” twins unleashes his new ginormous film. I don’t think much has changed about the action movie that isn’t also reflected in every corner of the industry. There is a lot of sameness. Horror movies are either PG-13 for the tweens or a hard “R” rating for the sickos. Independent films are now put through the studio ringer to make sure they have the appropriate doses of quirk and snark.
Comedy is about the best place to be; specifically a comedy starring Seth Rogen. That man is a license to do whatever the hell he wants, and what he usually wants is to make a funny movie. Essentially it boils down to this: if you’re a really good director, you can probably get the movie you want made, made. If you’re a mediocre director, you’re going to be obeying the studio. I don’t see “Transformers” as the beginning of the end. In fact, contrary to what lots of critics have said, I think it’s one of Bay’s better movies – better than “The Rock” and “Pearl Harbor” and don’t even get me started on “Bad Boys II.”
Movies are getting bigger. We have lost some elements of basic storytelling. In other ways, the stories are much better and more diverse. 20 yrs ago, we’d never see a 2-year stint where “No Country For Old Men” and “Slumdog Millionaire” would be our Best Picture winners. Too dark and too non-American.
What I do ponder often, is what type of movie I would want to make. Part of the reason I do find “Transformers” so damn impressive is I can’t imagine the logistical labyrinth it must have been to shoot that movie. The coordination, and I know there were loads of people involved, but it’s still kindof amazing to me. As are the effects. They look great. Now if we could just see them… and if they could just be in a better movie. Then we’d really have something.
“What I do ponder often, is what type of movie I would want to make.”
You just can’t.
You simply won’t.
“I have an Acting Degree in Theatre, so naturally I write and direct films.”
Naturally.
“I am 26 years old.”
And tomorrow you’ll be 52.
“[...] a better movie.”
Catchy words. Use them as a tagline for your debut feature.
“Then we’d really have something.”
You betcha. Good luck. Don’t waste your “geniusity”.
Okay, there ib@cg, I don’t know if you have an early morning job like myself or if you were just incredibly bored. Did you take issue with my thoughts on the Bay-meister, or is the offense elsewhere? Clearly to you I’m also a hack, and while I’m not ready to dispute, I wonder could you explain why you think so? I have short films online – there are even links to them from my blog in what could easily be seen as rampant self-congratulation! – you could gander at those, then you’d have some real ammunition.
But if nothing else surely, SURELY, we can all agree that “geniusity” isn’t a word.
“Clearly to you I’m also a hack [...]”
Clearly, yes. Hack, no. You’re a good blogger. You just keep your nose way up. Your yardstick seems to be your self indulgent “potential”.
“I have short films”
Small steps first, long jumps later. I got it the first time, that’s why I said “Good luck”.
“rampant self-congratulation!”
You’re right. Especially with the “!”. Why don’t you try to keep the “rampant” factor and only stick it to your “imagination” factor. And let the others discover that.
“we can all agree that “geniusity” isn’t a word.”
Duh. Did you notice the little “upper-hand comas”? Their goal was to intellectually by-pass the SPELL-CHECKER.
P.S.
We know Bay is not Kubrick. HE knows he’s not Kubrick.
…but, for now, neither are you.
I agree that Bay has never attempted to be Kubrick. But 1)in what way should that free him from criticism? & 2)then what IS he attempting to do? I still give him credit for making such a huge movie, but I don’t think it’s in any way unfair to criticize him for not telling a better story- or even for simply not telling this story better.
Our difference is you are criticizing me for criticizing Bay and I think both are fair game.
And aside from the measure of self-satisfaction that is unavoidable in writing about myself, I doubt I’m more self-indulgent than the average writer or filmmalker. I’m not successful is what separates us. But success does not necessarilly breed standards, nor the other way around. Either way, as a writer, I am intrigued by the scale of many movies, since it is so far beyond me. And in the face of that, as well as the pervasive sameness I mentioned in the blog, it is a worthy practice for a writer, a director, a reader, a viewer, a consumer to take a moment to consider whether what they write, direct, read, view, consume is simply more of the same or if it might exist with some distinction. If it is at all a challenge or simply a continuous stream of ease. Which is not to say I fancy myself as wholly distinct. It is, however, to say that my “pursuit” is originality. Whether or not I succeed is not for me to say.
Let Bay be Bay.
Stick to your league.
Write “Pi” and “Memento”. Direct “Paranormal Activity”. Start criticizing Daniel Myrick.
Stick to your goals. You said it, brother:
“my “pursuit” is originality”
Okay then. Do that.
And we’ll see your blog 20 years from now.
Meanwhile, let Bay be Bay.
He didn’t cheat you. He only fooled Steven Spielberg…
…or not.
I disagree. That’s a pretty weak, bland defense for Michael Bay or really anything, and one that doesn’t get very much mileage in any meaningful discussion. You also use a narrow definition of originality, although that may have been the idea.
Of course you disagree.
Since I was only criticizing YOU.
Take it this way:
I wrote here simply because I’m malevolent.
And I enjoy seeing your sincere willingness to CONVINCE me of anything.
I am amused by honest people lying themselves.
But I know I can’t convince you of your mediocrity. And you didn’t have the guts to tell me I’m a loser (of some kind).
I only wanted to leave a bitter-and-realistic mark here, since you’ll save everything you ever blog-write on your computer, thinking that it matters, and 20 years from now you’ll nostalgically read some of your stuff, and suddenly remember that I told you that you’re wasting your life.
The proof is exactly the article above:
You write about Michael Bay.
No good filmmaker starts a blog or a website BEFORE he accomplishes something important.
No good filmmaker ever writes a single word of criticism BEFORE he has a decent list on IMDb.
That’s my proof, buddy. That “YOU did everything BEFORE” stuff.
Note for your June 23rd, 2030 re-read:
Are you wondering why you’re still unknown and unhappy and unaccomplished?
The answer is simple:
20 years ago you ruined your fragile filmmaking mind-frame by TAKING THE EASY PATH, by not writing scripts (and only that) and not shooting films (and only that) and not analyzing films and scripts (and only that).
Your current mind “settings” are wrong, blah-blah boy.
Pick someone from your own family. Just pick one.
Well, 20 years from now, you are EXACTLY that person PLUS 14 short-films.
(If it makes you feel better to answer back… don’t. Believe that I’m the devil, and you got 12 minutes of my attention. Big deal.)
Oh no silly, you’re not the Devil, you’re a child. You’ve been commenting on a blog I wrote about a year ago. Which one of us is living in the past?
Your proof about why I’ll never be a good filmmaker doesn’t even qualify for the term “speculation.” In fact many writers and filmmakers, from Chekhov to the French fellows at Cahiers du Cinema, have started out in criticism and short pieces.
But even if they hadn’t. We’re in a new landscape today, for good and bad. The way movies are watched, the way criticism functions, the amount of information about movies prior to their release are all changing. 20-30 years ago, I wouldn’t have had the money or opportunity to make movies on my own. And that puts me in the same boat as millions of other people on youtube. How to be different and distinct when the very things that provide opportunities for exposure also simultaneously lower the expectation and increase the number of opportunities for everyone else? It may actually be harder now than ever before.
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. This blog is sometimes reviews, sometimes essays about film or writing or reading or perhaps a few small stories, but it’s always about trying to navigate that path, which includes people like Michael Bay and (a little more recently) Tommy Wiseau and countless other writers, directors, actors, producers, critics, novelists, pundits… Which means there are also a lot of people like you.
You misjudge me if you think you’ve hit on what my goals are. I may very well fail. But if I do, it won’t have anything to do with a blog or writing criticism too early or anything so facile as that. It will be because I stopped. Either I got worn down or maybe something will come along and displace film’s importance for me, but if in 20 years I look back and have a dozen or so short films I’m proud of, that I worked hard on, that meant something to me, then I can live with that. There are worse ways to spend my time.
You must not read my blog much. Because one of the biggest lessons I’ve been learning – and writing about, it’s true – is that if my success is tied to the “Culture-of-Goal” idea illuminated beautifully in David Foster Wallace’s book “Infinite Jest,” then nothing I do, whether artistic or not, will ever satisfy me. It will only paralyze me with fear. If the goal is fame or awards or overwhelming admiration from all who know of my “work,” — in short if success as a filmmaker is as you assume it to be — then I’m fucked already. But if it’s something else, if it’s doing what you feel called to do as well as you can and looking at your efforts with honesty, well, maybe I can get some of that. It’s lofty in its own way because it requires perspective and openness about things that are often very personal. I think I can do that. I’m trying to do that.
So I know you think you know me, and that’s adorable. But maybe let’s wait a few years and see what happens before we pontificate about the next two decades. It just makes you sound so utterly stupid.
Okay.
…and name ONE filmmaker that had a blog or wrote a mere (as you arrogantly call it) “criticism” piece… BEFORE he made a feature film.
Duncan Jones?
Neill Blomkamp?
Sophia Coppola?
Only one.
Name it.
Now.
1.
If you find one, try NOT to emulate him/her (since your goal is to only satisfy your “personal” artistic needs), but try at least to reach his/her league.
Meaning: make a feature film.
Stop blah-blah-ing. Since, as you said, NOW (and not “20-30 years ago”) you definitely have “the money” and the “opportunity to make movies” like “millions of other people on youtube”.
(btw, if “youtube” is your goal… pardon me)
But what’s “Cahiers du cinema” got to do with that? You’re… a blogger. That’s your current league.
2.
If you can’t find one, try to understand that NO REASONING IN THE WORLD COULD CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING. Especially a stranger’s one that uses words that don’t “qualify for the term “speculation”.”
If you truly wanna be happy when you’re old, imagine yourself reading your “criticism” posts. They’ll bore you. Because they have no meaning, no purpose. You wasted your time and energy. You’ll want to spend your (remaining) time reading Scorsese’s memoirs.
If you truly wanna be happy when you’re old, imagine yourself watching your movies with your grand-kids. That’s nice, isn’t it? Especially if there’s a feature among them. But still, they’ll ask you: “Granpa, why didn’t YOU wrote the “Source Code” script? Your answer will be: “I had plenty of ideas, but no time. I wrote my thoughts on a cinematic blog. Would you like to read it?” Imagine their answer. In an era when Spielberg’s grand-kids are making movies.
But I’m wasting my breath here. You already stuck your mind-frame in the wrong matrix. You think you’re right. You think you do the right thing.
Of course you do. You’re wise.
And you definitely were right about something.
I’m 4 years old.
I’m just a Junior Demon.