Author Topic: Michael Bay Worship Thread  (Read 13302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10951
  • Respect: +1349
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2004, 11:52:30 PM »
0
WTF MICHAEL BAY RULES HE IS GOD
"Hunger is the purest sin"

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +282
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2004, 11:57:55 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
4. if he had a tarantino script, he could make a great movie.

Are you SURE about that? I hardly think he'd know what to do with it.

Quote from: themodernage02
directing action is an art in itself.  

Of course. But Bay generally doesn't direct good action. That's why his ACTION movies are almost always complete shit. Get it?

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2004, 12:04:09 AM »
0
Anyone can take something that is inherently visually exciting (an explosion, fire, fast cars, gunshots, etc) and make it exciting on film.  

This means more than just placing the camera at a good angle.  Direction includes directing the actors.

The art of filmmaking is not trying to find something that looks cool or neat to film but every reason, every move that a filmmaker makes in a film should be justified for a thematic reason.  That is art.

Case in point, imagine Mystic River is Michael Bay had directed it.  Ughh.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10951
  • Respect: +1349
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2004, 12:09:00 AM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
every reason, every move that a filmmaker makes in a film should be justified for a thematic reason.  That is art.

Does this mean the artist has to personally justify art with a "thematic reason"? What if there is no clear or obvious thematic reason? What if art makes a statement through its lack of meaning... it's art because of that statement, isnt it? And isn't it subjective whether the statement or the theme is there?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2004, 12:17:16 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: SHAFTR
every reason, every move that a filmmaker makes in a film should be justified for a thematic reason.  That is art.

Does this mean the artist has to personally justify art with a "thematic reason"? What if there is no clear or obvious thematic reason? What if art makes a statement through its lack of meaning... it's art because of that statement, isnt it? And isn't it subjective whether the statement or the theme is there?


are you implying Michael Bay is an artist because he makes shit that doesn't mean anything?
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +282
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2004, 12:20:58 AM »
0
I think what SHAFTR might be saying is that the technical skills have to serve SOME purpose and not just simply to show off that you can do them.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10786
  • Respect: +727
    • Floating Heads
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2004, 08:11:18 AM »
0
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: themodernage02
4. if he had a tarantino script, he could make a great movie.

Are you SURE about that? I hardly think he'd know what to do with it.

yeah i think so.  tony scott did it, so i think bay could do the same were he given the chance.
Quote from: SHAFTR
Anyone can take something that is inherently visually exciting (an explosion, fire, fast cars, gunshots, etc) and make it exciting on film.

no, i dont believe anyone can.  some people do it very poorly.  there is more skill involved in directing a great action sequence then in directing a conversation.  cant the language of action be art in itself without pumping in some cliche meaning behind it?  like john woo's old movies?  like, isnt the action itself more cinematic than anything else?  doesnt that give it merit?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Respect: +20
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2004, 08:35:45 AM »
0
yeah, but you know what?  if his action movies were any good, then he generally wouldn't be regarded as a peice of shit director.  james cameron is a terrific action director because he knows how to do a fuckin action movie...thats why he's generally regarded as a good filmmaker.
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

kotte

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2051
  • camera assistant. camera operator. carnivore.
  • Respect: +9
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2004, 08:36:02 AM »
0
What did he say when he was attached to direct Phone Booth?

"How do I get this thing out of the booth?"

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Respect: +20
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2004, 08:47:04 AM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
how hard is it to put 2 good actors in a two shot?


not hard at all, but there's more to directing a good character driven scene than framing....
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2004, 09:38:58 AM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
3. if the actors did their jobs and ACTED, (which is what he hired them for), few takes wouldnt be a problem.  4. if he had a tarantino script, he could make a great movie.

how hard is it to put 2 good actors in a two shot?  cant both be appreciated for being different art forms?


Okay, 1: it's the director's job to get a performance out of an actor.
2: I think a blind 8 year old who's never made a movie before could still make something interesting with a Tarantino script.

and 3: the two-shot statement you made -- are you kidding? Have you ever made a movie before? Action scenes and talking scenes may be different but BOTH are quite hard to shoot, if you challenge yourself.

Seriously, any hack who's done a few big budget commercials could do Bay movies. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the guy, I find most of his films at least watchable, but man, anybody with the tiniest amount of experience, given a crew and a big budget, and having everything storyboarded in advance, could do what he does. And many have and will continue to do so in the future. Imo, the only thing he should be worshipped for is balling Jaime Bergman.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10786
  • Respect: +727
    • Floating Heads
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2004, 12:21:35 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
cant the language of action be art in itself? like, isnt the action itself more cinematic than anything else?  doesnt that give it merit?


Quote from: eward
Quote from: themodernage02
how hard is it to put 2 good actors in a two shot?


not hard at all, but there's more to directing a good character driven scene than framing....

yeah but i'll bet a couple of your buddies can go out and shoot a scene like godard if you wanted to, but you couldn't shoot a scene like the freeway scene in Bad Boys II.

Quote from: eward
yeah, but you know what?  if his action movies were any good, then he generally wouldn't be regarded as a peice of shit director.  james cameron is a terrific action director because he knows how to do a fuckin action movie...thats why he's generally regarded as a good filmmaker.

yeah but with cameron, he is also a writer.  so if he gets more credit for being an 'artist/auteur' credible director its because he wrote terminator, aliens, titantic, etc.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2004, 12:25:42 PM »
0
Designing a Campbell's Soup Can could be seen as a form of art.

Warhol painting one could be seen as a form of art.

Someone xeroxing pictures of the Warhol painting and passing them to his friends should not be seen as art.

When Bay adds something new and groundbreaking to action directing, we can call him a great director. Up until then, I think "decent action helmer" will do.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10951
  • Respect: +1349
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2004, 01:46:05 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
are you implying Michael Bay is an artist because he makes shit that doesn't mean anything?

Kind of. If he's an artist, though, I don't think he's a good one.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Michael Bay Worship Thread
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2004, 03:04:58 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: SHAFTR
are you implying Michael Bay is an artist because he makes shit that doesn't mean anything?

Kind of. If he's an artist, though, I don't think he's a good one.


I agree with SoNowThen and JB for the most part. I've actually very recently seen both The Rock and Armageddon, and I wondered if we were to view them as Michael Bay Films or Simpson/Bruckheimer films. The Rock was the better waste of time, but both had some pretty god-awful stuff (I mean, even the most flag-obsessed patriotic person would have to notice the sore-thumb Norman-Rockwell syrup in Armageddon, and I also found that the film was very confused and presumptuous in patronizing the working people it was supposedly making heroes of. What the hell was up with those laughable slow-motion tableaux of cornpone Midwestern overall-wearing hicks and bathed in the sunlight of a hard day's work? And the kids with wagons and crewcuts- it was such 1950s bullshit! Midwestern kids play video games and fight with their parents, just like everywhere else, Michael Bay, but I'm glad you were able to concoct a suitably exotic version, you high-concept cokehead!).

I think The Rock had better actors and more palatable ideas/execution. But give me almost any movie by any director with Nic Cage, Sean Connery, and Ed Harris above the title and another with Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, and it's a real no-brainer for me which will have at least the better (or at the very least more interesting) performances.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy