Upcoming Films


(autephex) #1

Recently heard a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was coming up soon, and was kinda excited to hear the turtles were going to be more “adult oriented” in treatment. Well, that excitement was a bit squashed when I looked it up to see its a Michael Bay film and everything about it looks to have that typical huge-budget look. Looking further into it, I guess Bay is just producing and it is directed by Jonathan Liebesman, which isn’t particularly exciting either.

Currently no real footage of the film or trailers out there, but a bunch of fake stuff. There are a few leaked photos though


(Asa) #2

Michael Bay is cinema’s own Antichrist. He’s James Cameron to the power of a hundred. He’s a spiteful, cynical, movie-hating and movie AUDIENCE-hating 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, “Yep, I’ve bent you all over for your cinema ticket monies AGAIN, you fcking loathsome pigs! I’m the biggest cnt in the world!” He thinks of the cinema-going public as docile, slow-witted cattle. Herd 'em in, take their cash, herd 'em out. Cha-CHING! 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.


(Farmer_J) #3

He’s making them aliens, but they’re still turtles, yet changing their entire background according to some writers on imdb.


(Mickey13) #4

LOL, last.caress, your post made me laugh like a retard. ;D

As far as his films are concerned, I’ve seen only Transformers (which wasn’t all that bad) and Armageddon (which was plainly fucking awful, abysmal). I evade his films like a virulent pestilence and besides, I’ve got such a great bunch of titles to sift through that I don’t even bother to check any of his pieces of turd. I’ve heard that his Pain & Gain (2013) isn’t too bad though.


(autephex) #5

One of the few bits I read while briefly looking into the film is that he originally wanted to do this, but has since changes his mind and decided to “listen to the fans”


(Phil H) #6

@last.caress

I knew there was a reason Liked you. ;D


(chuck connors brother) #7

Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze was probably the movie I saw most as a kid… but as for Michael Bay I liked The Rock, and don’t mind Bad Boys 1 & 2, Transformers 1 and Armageddon… he seems to mostly produce horror remakes none the original things seem very interesting


(Bible Joe) #8

Don’t know about Bay as a producer and a s a human being, but I have to step in and take a stance for his directing. Imo Pain & Gain wass an excellent film, with very good directing, and I also enjoyed Armageddon (and to a lesser extent Bad Boys). So I think he’s a pretty capable filmmaker from what I’ve seen so far. Don’t know why he gets so much hate since the Transformers-franchise, but then I haven’t watched those films.


(chuck connors brother) #9

It started with Pearl Harbor possibly… but I think he deserves the hate for that one


(kit saginaw) #10

Yeah… nothin’ like spoiled American turks winning the Battle Of Britain for the RAF, then suddenly popping-up in Asia, winning the air-war over Japan while suppressing their homosexuality because ‘the world doesn’t understand yet’, blah blah blah… Bay is atrocious.


(Farmer_J) #11

… by that, he’s probably going to listen to 2 words from fans, possibly “not aliens”, and then do his own choices.


(autephex) #12

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.


(Asa) #13

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?

http://www.thewrap.com/transformers-age-of-extinction-michael-bay-haters/

[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.


(Stanton) #14

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 ;).


(El Topo) #15

[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.


(John Welles) #16

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 ;)).


(Stanton) #17

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.


(Asa) #18

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. :slight_smile: (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.


(Stanton) #19

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. :slight_smile: (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).

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.


(Stanton) #20

Hmm, really deeply attractive? We need proof …