I used to like The Rock & Bad Boys as action flics (never saw Bad Boys II) but have not watched either in at least 10 years. Armageddon somehow retains entertainment value despite being a very bad movie.
Have not bothered with any of the Transformers as they just look like total crap to me.
Michael Bay just kinda seems like the definition of all flash and no soul.
See? You SEE? What did I say?
[quote=“last.caress, post:2, topic:3346”]Michael Bay is cinema’s own Antichrist. He’s James Cameron to the power of a hundred. He’s a spiteful, cynical, [size=14pt]movie-hating and movie AUDIENCE-hating[/size] grifter, barely even attempting to maintain his subterfuge as a “film director” any more. Like Cameron, he has a keen eye for an image but he has never said anything with any of his movies, ever. Unless you count, “[size=14pt]Yep, I’ve bent you all over for your cinema ticket monies AGAIN, you f*cking loathsome pigs![/size] I’m the biggest c*nt in the world!” [size=14pt]He thinks of the cinema-going public as docile, slow-witted cattle. Herd 'em in, take their cash, herd 'em out. Cha-CHING![/size] And the bit of that that sticks in the craw the hardest is that he’s proved right over and over again. It’s heartbreaking.
He’s a stinking dog’s pisshole of a human being and, come the revolution, he’ll be first against the wall. I swear to f*cking Jeebus. Him and Simon “Trousers” Cowell.[/quote]
…And what do I read today regarding Bay, his latest l’oeuf du dogplop Transformers: Age of Extinction, and his approach to the cinemagoing public?
[url]http://www.thewrap.com/transformers-age-of-extinction-michael-bay-haters/[/url]
[i]If anybody is wondering why the “Transformers” franchise keeps getting louder, longer and less dependent on silly movie cliché’s like character development, it’s because director Michael Bay knows people will see the sequels no matter what he films.
When MTV asked the blockbuster director about “fanboys” who are critical of the franchise, he was very confident even those who “hate” it will go see the fourth installment, “Age of Extinction,” in theaters.
“They love to hate, and I don’t care; let them hate,” Bay said. “They’re still going to see the movie! I think it’s good to get a little tension. Very good.”[/i]
There are dried bits of crusty knobwipe up my curtains with more integrity.
Frankly said, I don’t like all this easy insulting of famous people, be it in the net, in TV, in the papers. Be it deserved in one’s opinion or not.
Sure, it’s fun to read, but I don’t want other people write or talk about me in that way (be it deserved or not ;).
[quote=“Stanton, post:14, topic:3346”]Frankly said, I don’t like all this easy insulting of famous people, be it in the net, in TV, in the papers. Be it deserved in one’s opinion or not.
Sure, it’s fun to read, but I don’t want other people write or talk about me in that way (be it deserved or not ;).[/quote]
Yeah totally agree.
For all that matters in cinema there where always guys like Michael Bay, and who knows in the future films his could became vintage cult stuff.
Anyhow, Michael Bay isn’t even the worst of directors - The Rock is actually rather fun, and were is “chaos cinema” aesthetic works. No intention though of watching the latest Transformers… Curiously, his rapid cutting, which is commonly pointed to, as if self-evident, as his major flaw, isn’t inherently bad and can be used remarkably effectively (no doubt Stanton will jump in here and say Quantum of Solace ;)).
What I said was not said to defend Bay (nor to bash last.caress, whose contributions I enjoy, and who surely can stand that), but actually, even if I don’t care for most of his films, he’s a much better director than his reputation might suggest.
Doubtless, if not he made these mainstream Hollywood films, some other guy would direct them. On the other hand maybe in 30 years film buffs begin to appreciate his films. Leone got often similar worse reviews for his films, before they had attached some patina.
No problem whatsoever sir. Disagreement is the lifeblood of forum interaction.If we all agreed all of the time, everyone would eventually stop talking. What would be the point?
Well, I wouldn’t call it easy insulting OR undeserved; if I were to say, for instance, that in addition to his appalling attitude to the cinemagoing public and his almost uniformly fuckawful films, Bay also has the genitals of a hamster and a propensity for necrophilia, that would be a cheap shot, since it’s not an opinion I hold, I’ve no idea as to the validity of the claim and it’s irrelevant in any case relative to what he’s in the public eye for. I’m not taking a shot at him just because he’s famous, that would be ridiculous. But I think that the films he (or anyone else) puts out there are open to comment, positive or not, and the same goes for anything else he (again: Or anyone else) puts out there.
I disagree with your suffix there. I wouldn’t write in ANY insulting manner about you if you’d done nothing to warrant it, and indeed I won’t be insulting Bay for something he hasn’t put out there and opened up to scrutiny. If, for instance, some papparazi scumbags with long lenses had snapped Bay frolicking on the beach on his holidays, and he was wearing a regrettable mankini or something, I wouldn’t see that as a reason to get at him; I’d consider that a serious invasion of the man’s privacy and dignity. If however he strode up the red carpet in his regrettable mankini, I might then be inclined to mention that he looks like a twat (if indeed, I think that to be the case). So, if he goes on record to say that it doesn’t matter how sh*t his films are because people will lap them up anyway, well, I find that to be a typically cynical attitude from him and one that invites criticism.
That said, I could of course voice the same disapproval without necessarily being quite so ascerbic. Makes for drier discourse imo but I’ll happily choose my phrasing more carefully, even though I disagree that I’ve taken any cheap shots at him, and even though I maintain that the guy is an artless c*ntwipe gentleman. 
(seriously though, no offence to any of your good selves was or is intended, and I’d much rather be told that my approach was upsetting, than have any of you tolerate it in silence. I’ll curb the more “colourful” phrasing).
Rapid cutting in and of itself isn’t inherently bad, of course. Done right, I agree it can be a remarkably effective tool. Like any and every other technique. Bay’s rapid cutting of his action sequences is however, fucking dreadful imo. Dreadful. Whole swathes of his movies are a barely coherent mess. I believe that it’s crucial to an action scene that we, the viewers, know where we’re at and what we’re looking at. Otherwise, we may as well have our eyes clamped open and be made to view a random hotchpotch of violent disparate images, like that bugger in A Clockwork Orange. I appreciate that the filmmaker might at that point want to be conveying to us the protagonists’ sense of confusion, but come on; that’s not what Bay’s doing. He just f*cks it up far more often than he gets it right. Look at the “Omaha Beach” sequence very early on in Saving Private Ryan, a movie created by a master director. All of the confusion, horror and panic that Mr. Spielberg would have wanted to convey was present and correct. The first time I saw it, I was feeling sick with worry and dread. And yet, at every stage, we know where we are, what we’re supposed to be taking in.
Still, fwiw, I don’t find his poor rapid cutting to be his worst trait; that’s just one more bad shrimp to chuck on the crapheap I reckon. And it’s not even that he makes what I consider to be pant-shittingly bad movies. Ed Wood is often (incorrectly, imo, but that’s another whinge for another day) cited as the worst director of all time, but I find his work - which IS awful, on a technical level - charming, delightful and eminently watchable; and not in a so-bad-it’s-good way, either. No, what I hate the most about Bay is probably what I like the most about Ed Wood. It’s the intent. Ed Wood wanted to say something, and he wanted his film to be the best film he could make. Bay doesn’t give a wormy dogplop for story, for artistry. He’s parlayed a modest, soulless technical proficiency for the machinations of creating a moving picture into an opportunity to churn out whatever roll-up-roll-up carny freakshow will con us all into the tent the quickest. Come see the chicken with no head! Come see the film with no plot! Roll up! Roll up!
I’ll have to agree to disagree there, I think. He clearly possesses the technical nous to create a moving image but, for me, that just makes it all the worse that he hasn’t made a decent film (imo).
Oh, come on! ;D That’s a terrible defence! Oh, I wish people would lay off Jimmy Savile! If he wasn’t a filthy kiddie-fingerer, someone else would’ve been. Give him a break!
Do you honestly, truly think that Bay might just be a misunderstood genius and that that genius may only become apparent in another generation or so? If you do, then I respect your opinion. And I’d be genuinely interested to know what in Bay’s work would have caused you to think that, because then I’m clearly not appreciating what he’s doing in the fullest manner and perhaps you could grant me a new and astonishingly rare perspective.
Yes, but must we call actors or directors we don’t like assholes, cunts, dorks etc? (some may say yes … )
I disagree with your suffix there. I wouldn't write in ANY insulting manner about you if you'd done nothing to warrant it, and indeed I won't be insulting Bay for something he hasn't put out there and opened up to scrutiny. If, for instance, some papparazi scumbags with long lenses had snapped Bay frolicking on the beach on his holidays, and he was wearing a regrettable mankini or something, I wouldn't see that as a reason to get at him; I'd consider that a serious invasion of the man's privacy and dignity. If however he strode up the red carpet in his regrettable mankini, I might then be inclined to mention that he looks like a twat (if indeed, I think that to be the case). So, if he goes on record to say that it doesn't matter how sh*t his films are because people will lap them up anyway, well, I find that to be a typically cynical attitude from him and one that invites criticism.That said, I could of course voice the same disapproval without necessarily being quite so ascerbic. Makes for drier discourse imo but I’ll happily choose my phrasing more carefully, even though I disagree that I’ve taken any cheap shots at him, and even though I maintain that the guy is an artless c*ntwipe gentleman.
Yes, on the other hand discourses shouldn’t decome dry.
Rapid cutting in and of itself [i]isn't[/i] inherently bad, of course. Done right, I agree it can be a remarkably effective tool. Like any and every other technique. [i]Bay[/i]'s rapid cutting of his action sequences is however, fucking dreadful imo. Dreadful. Whole swathes of his movies are a barely coherent mess. I believe that it's crucial to an action scene that we, the viewers, know where we're at and what we're looking at.I don't believe this. Some action scenes are meant to look confusing. And still work fine. Bay's action is often well done. I give him this even in films i otherwise don't care for.
I'll have to agree to disagree there, I think. He clearly possesses the technical nous to create a moving image but, for me, that just makes it all the worse that he hasn't made a decent film (imo).
The Island is at least more than decent, it is pretty good. Ed Wood films are unfortunately boring as hell.
Oh, come on! ;D That's a terrible defence!
Not if Bay is only a Hollywood director who makes the usual films which were done anyway.
Do you honestly, truly think that Bay might just be a misunderstood genius and that that genius may only become apparent in another generation or so? If you do, then I respect your opinion. And I'd be genuinely interested to know what in Bay's work would have caused you to think that, because then I'm clearly not appreciating what he's doing in the fullest manner and perhaps you could grant me a new and astonishingly rare perspective.
No, I don’t assume that, but there were times when nobody thought that about Leone or Hawks too. It is not impossible.
I still can’t believe how bad Leone’s reputation was in the 60s.
Hmm, really deeply attractive? We need proof …
No, not at all. A director (or other artist) isn’t a cnt just because I don’t like him. But the ones who crow “I don’t care; let them hate, they’re still going to see the movie!” ARE cnts though, IMO. Massive c*nts. But, as I said, I’ll be less abrasive if it offends.
Bay’s action scenes aren’t going for a confusing aesthetic. That’s a cop out. He’s just all over the place.
Here’s a three minute piece of Bay tripe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kJXt2WnWz4 If you can tell me what’s happening I’d be glad to know, because in attempting to follow it I just found it to be a camera-twirling pile of old sh… sorry, I meant I just found it to be confusing. 
Here’s my take on those three minutes (which felt like twenty minutes, tbh):
[size=8pt]Right, a robot’s ordered Sam to get to the building. Move! Off he runs, away from sexy girlie who’s name escapes me. Cut to a soldier shouting “HIT IT!” in an unspecified direction, at an unspecified target. Lot of explosion, in the middle of which is a robot. Good robot? Bad robot? Cut to: “Cover fire!” yells a yellow robot, twirling about with another robot as they fire into the background at nothing. Is that other robot (not the yellow one) the robot that told Sam to get to the building, or the robot being shot at by the soldier? Or both? Or neither? Is that three different robots, or two, or all one robot? No matter. Anyway, Oh, he keeps doing roly-polys. Oh, cut back to Sam, running. Another robot (that same robot, again?) says, “Watch out!”, picks up a car, gets shot. A helicopter robot flies past. Cut to Sexy Girlie (Fck, what’s her name?) as she attaches a winch to something, says, “I’m going, I’m going!” Cut to another robot firing randomly into the foreground. Cut to another robot (can’t see him; just a bit of leg and arm) firing and lurching a bit. People are stooped, running. If the robot’s firing that way, aren’t those people running toward the trouble? No matter. Cut to… Ah! Here’s Optimus Prime! I know that one. SMASH! Through some carelessly placed bins. Brilliant! And tyres screeching into a - what was that? A 180? a 270? A full 360? which way is he facing? Doesn’t matter, now he’s transforming AND spinning, and the camera’s spinning around him. And around him. And around and around him. I suppose in fairness they need to make a big deal of this since it’s the movie’s first “transforming robot” moment… oh hang on, no it’s not; it’s the 487th transforming robot moment. Incredibly, I’m both bored AND nauseous following this unnecessarily dizzying sequence. Still, let’s plow on… where were we? Ah yes, Prime is looking down into the upturned camera as he growls “Megatron!” at a robot many storeys above him, on top of a roof. Oh, AND about a mile away. Megatron flies into Prime, they swoop about for a bit, crashing into this building and that. Oop, straight through a building. Crash, roll, fisticuffs on the floor. Bodyslam, clap hands into a long gun apparatus, Prime shoots Megatron, Megatron shoots Prime into a building. Then he falls out of the building. Last (checks) 56 seconds have been relatively coherent. Naff, but coherent. Oh, cut to Sam running again, and I’m uncertain again. A robot is running with him. "Keep moving, Sam! Even though I’m a fcking car and I could get you from A to B in a fraction of the time, you keep running, sunshine!" Cut to a robot skidding to a halt, and scything at the floor for some reason. Now an explosion, now a car through a window. Is he fighting? Agitated? Wire loose? Schizophrenic? Goodie? Baddie? No time for that, here’s Sam running again. Oh, a big plane robot’s in his way. Megatron? Another one? Oh, cut to cars blowing up all around another robot (or the same robot?), and cars flying down the street, and back to the robot with cars blowing up around him as the yellow robot goes, “NOOOO!” like Darth Vader at the end of Episode III along with roly-poly robot and they engage the robot with the cars blowing up around him. Sam’s crouched - beneath them, is that? Hard to tell… bit more roly polys, other robot turns into a plane and flies off. Had the fight finished? Did he get Sam? No. Kill those other two? No. Was he just trying to run from them? What was that skirmish in aid of? No time for that, Sam’s off again. And here’s… Megatron, I think, literally out of nowhere and then down through the sky, giving it “Give me the CUBE, boy!” Sam’s running but that robot’s not behind him, he’s… somewhere else? Round the block? I dunno… cars crashing into him, all moving (I guess) toward the carnage. He falls, and then… electricity! Electricity, surging through everything. Now EVERYTHING’S a transformer! How do they know what side they’re on, or who they’re supposed to be shooting at, or why? Or are all transformers who are born from the ELECTRICITY inherently bad? I dunno…[/size]
;D Oh, Stanters! Eleven films this man has made, and that’s as much as you’ve got in arguing against the opinion that he hasn’t made a good film yet? I think you’ve confirmed my take on him there, fella.
(chokes on coffee) WHAT?!? Now you’re just being argumentative! I’m going to let that go, and put it down to you eating a bad clam for dinner this evening, or something. ;D
I’ll be honest, I wasn’t aware that he had a bad reputation back in the day. I’m guessing that he was largely dismissed by Hollywood as a genre director in a hack ripoff industry (inasmuch as Italian cinema had a fondness for churning out cheap and cheerful facsimilies of whatever was trendy at the time)? The Hollywood machine chewed Leone up and spat him out. Cut Once Upon a Time in America to shreds for financial reasons; to get more sittings of it into the cinemas. Money first, story last. Bay IS the Hollywood machine; every tool under the sun at his disposal, exclusively makes films with no artistic integrity whatsoever. Money first, story last.
;D Ooh, I thought that had slipped by you!
See? Deeply attractive, as you said.
so you expect him to lie? No, at least he is honest .
Bay's action scenes aren't going for a confusing aesthetic. That's a cop out. He's just all over the place.Here’s a three minute piece of Bay tripe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kJXt2WnWz4 If you can tell me what’s happening I’d be glad to know, because in attempting to follow it I just found it to be a camera-twirling pile of old sh… sorry, I meant I just found it to be confusing.
[color=blue]_______
Yeah, it’s ok, well made from a technical point of view. Actually better than nearly all bigger SW shoot-outs, much better than the river ambush and the cemetery shoot-out in FOD, which is from a director I adore.
And the cutting is not that fast, pretty slow compared to Quantum of solace. And this is one of the best action scenes I ever saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfYC_CBNtiM
;D Oh, Stanters! Eleven films this man has made, and that's as much as you've got in arguing against the opinion that he hasn't made a good film yet? I think you've confirmed my take on him there, fella.
Not really, as I saw only 3 film by the Bay. The Rock was boring, Transformers was quite ok and entertaining (but I fell asleep when the last half an hour action started, whatever that says you), and The Island
But I’m not the one to defend Bay as I do not care for his films (remember?). But I have an intelligent friend who really likes his stuff, and he likes otherwise all kind of films.
Actually I’ ve only watched one of Bay film from start to end and it was The Rock, (on TV), all of his other films seem to be in TV prime time hour from time to time, Armageddon mostly.
So normally I don’t watch Bay’s films, only small bits, I don’t like Von Trier films, but I dont call those guys names, mostly cause I don’t know them and they aren’t in front of me, and is not worth it, for “artistics” divergences, normally I prefer to speak of the things I like.
Anyway I don’t think that in the future Bay films will get the same attetion as Leone’s films get today, at least in the same way. I can only guess but Leone’s films got some flack when they were released because they were out of the ordinary, they were diferente from the usual norm.
Bay films all but that, they are made to be predictable. They cost loads of money, so there are intense market studies, target viewers and so on, so when those products got to the cinemas, they have a specific target viewer.
In the end, those kind of productions give work to a lot of people, and by now are the main reason why there still cinemas open to public.
Michael Fassbender in a western. From the looks on the trailer, it seems to me it was a quickie made and done on the cheap. I could be wrong though!
Slow West Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Michael Fassbender Western Thriller HD - YouTube
Actually looks promising to me
Yep. promising.
Shot in New Zealand arrh Middle Earth?
The Hateful Eight is still a ways off, but entertainment weekly had this cover.
There’s a few more pics here. Movie News | EW.com
Some fine facial hair on Kurt Russell there. Interesting that he is going to be out in two westerns in quick succession. Bone Tomahawk, the other one, looks like a Western / Horror mash up.
We can only hope for the best.
Not a fan of Adam Sandler, but this looks funny. I’ll probably watch it someday with a few beers. 
