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.