• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBM: Invincible season 2 returns March 14; X-Men '97 premieres March 20

Fuck the critics, they just don't understand Bay. He couldn't give a fuck about narrative, and why should he, when he has such a good eye for action. Film is, first and foremost, a visual medium. It's funny how, when a summer movie delivers unbelievable visuals, critics trash it for not having a "plot." Fuck a plot, I wish the movie was just two and a half hours of pure kinetic action. This (Dark of the Moon) may be Bay's best film, and the last hour long Chicago destruction set piece is his magnum opus. Don't think I've ever seen such a visceral and kinetic action scene such as Bay delivers here. Seriously, Bay is an auteur, but he's such a different auteur that the critics just don't understand him. At the very least, you have to give him credit for the giddy nature with which he makes his movies. See this in Imax for the best effect. The collapsing building section, and the resulting loss of gravity is truly a breathtaking sequence. This goes right up there with The Rock as one of his best movies.

:rulz: This better be a parody...
 
:rulz: This better be a parody...

No it's not. Bay has a very distinct style of filmmaking, and it's refreshing to see a summer blockbuster that puts itself out there, and displays it's directors sensibilities without trying to conform to standard ideas of what an action movie should be. These other summer movies like Thor and X-Men just have no identity, they are so bland and the action so calculated and boring, that at the end there's no discernible authorial voice in the movie. They have nothing that makes them stand out. At least with a Michael Bay film, you know it's made by Bay, because he has such a unique way of filming action. Shooting in 3D has also seemed to help him slow his camera down, so the action really pops, and some of the resulting shots are beautiful. You can hate Bay all you want, and you would be in the majority there, but this kind of filmmaking is so refreshing to see after the watered down summer blockbusters we've had to endure this year.
 
No it's not. Bay has a very distinct style of filmmaking, and it's refreshing to see a summer blockbuster that puts itself out there, and displays it's directors sensibilities without trying to conform to standard ideas of what an action movie should be. These other summer movies like Thor and X-Men just have no identity, they are so bland and the action so calculated and boring, that at the end there's no discernible authorial voice in the movie. They have nothing that makes them stand out. At least with a Michael Bay film, you know it's made by Bay, because he has such a unique way of filming action. Shooting in 3D has also seemed to help him slow his camera down, so the action really pops, and some of the resulting shots are beautiful. You can hate Bay all you want, and you would be in the majority there, but this kind of filmmaking is so refreshing to see after the watered down summer blockbusters we've had to endure this year.

Whew, good. It IS a parody. I was worried there for a second.
 
Yeah, it's always cool to make snarky comments instead of actually laying out some reasons why you think he is a bad filmmaker.

I don't argue with parodies and no human can honestly think Michael Bay movies are "good."
 
Bay is pretty terrible...and I don't get the X-Men First Class and Thor movies having no identity. That's complete nonsense. But, some prefer style over substance, and I get that. To me, though, 2 hours of kinetic action, as you put it, is just exhaustingly boring. For an example on how to get the right mix, go re-watch The Dark Knight. Nolan Smith absolutely nails the balance by giving the action some meaning by using the plot to build tension around it.
 
No it's not. Bay has a very distinct style of filmmaking, and it's refreshing to see a summer blockbuster that puts itself out there, and displays it's directors sensibilities without trying to conform to standard ideas of what an action movie should be.

...isn't that pretty much what all of his movies are?
 
Bay is pretty terrible...and I don't get the X-Men First Class and Thor movies having no identity. That's complete nonsense. But, some prefer style over substance, and I get that. To me, though, 2 hours of kinetic action, as you put it, is just exhaustingly boring. For an example on how to get the right mix, go re-watch The Dark Knight. Nolan Smith absolutely nails the balance by giving the action some meaning by using the plot to build tension around it.

He's a pretty good basketball player, too.
 
Bay is pretty terrible...and I don't get the X-Men First Class and Thor movies having no identity. That's complete nonsense. But, some prefer style over substance, and I get that. To me, though, 2 hours of kinetic action, as you put it, is just exhaustingly boring. For an example on how to get the right mix, go re-watch The Dark Knight. Nolan Smith absolutely nails the balance by giving the action some meaning by using the plot to build tension around it.

The Duke player? Haha. But yeah I absolutely love The Dark Knight, and I agree that Christopher Nolan blows every other comic book movie out of the water with TDK. But, what about X-Men and Thor is distinguishing? Those aren't movies, they are just stories. There's nothing, not one scene in either movie (other than maybe the bar scene in X-Men) that makes those movies stand out. The best filmmakers have a discernible style, and when you see the movie, you know it is their work. Admittedly, Bay does not always hit the mark. But, with T3 he does, and his images here lift the action above ever becoming boring. To compare him with Nolan is unfair, since they are trying to do completely seperate things with their movies. Nolan's style is more commercially acceptable, and yeah, probably more effective in creating an emotionally satisfying film, but the visceral nature of Bay's films (especially the last hour of T3) mixed with the amazing score by Steve Jablonsky, really does create something special.
 
The Duke player? Haha. But yeah I absolutely love The Dark Knight, and I agree that Christopher Nolan blows every other comic book movie out of the water with TDK. But, what about X-Men and Thor is distinguishing? Those aren't movies, they are just stories. There's nothing, not one scene in either movie (other than maybe the bar scene in X-Men) that makes those movies stand out. The best filmmakers have a discernible style, and when you see the movie, you know it is their work. Admittedly, Bay does not always hit the mark. But, with T3 he does, and his images here lift the action above ever becoming boring. To compare him with Nolan is unfair, since they are trying to do completely seperate things with their movies. Nolan's style is more commercially acceptable, and yeah, probably more effective in creating an emotionally satisfying film, but the visceral nature of Bay's films (especially the last hour of T3) mixed with the amazing score by Steve Jablonsky, really does create something special.

I would argue that the last half hour of the new X-Men movie definitely stands out. The whole battle of wills and morality between Professor Xavier and Magneto was great at the end of the movie. Not to mention the special effects were sick as well.
 
Michael Bay is a genius and The Tree of Life is one of the best movies of all-time. Does not compute.
 
Fuck the critics, they just don't understand Bay. He couldn't give a fuck about narrative, and why should he, when he has such a good eye for action. Film is, first and foremost, a visual medium. It's funny how, when a summer movie delivers unbelievable visuals, critics trash it for not having a "plot." Fuck a plot, I wish the movie was just two and a half hours of pure kinetic action. This (Dark of the Moon) may be Bay's best film, and the last hour long Chicago destruction set piece is his magnum opus. Don't think I've ever seen such a visceral and kinetic action scene such as Bay delivers here. Seriously, Bay is an auteur, but he's such a different auteur that the critics just don't understand him. At the very least, you have to give him credit for the giddy nature with which he makes his movies. See this in Imax for the best effect. The collapsing building section, and the resulting loss of gravity is truly a breathtaking sequence. This goes right up there with The Rock as one of his best movies.

This is what I was trying to say to an extent, but didn't really know how to word it.

The Chicago scenes, are awesome, especially the building destruction, and some of the pulled back cityscape scenes that show the invasion had hints of Nolan's Inception cityscape.

I really liked this movie...more than both 1 & 2 combined....and it was a great end to the series (I hope?)
 
This is what I was trying to say to an extent, but didn't really know how to word it.

The Chicago scenes, are awesome, especially the building destruction, and some of the pulled back cityscape scenes that show the invasion had hints of Nolan's Inception cityscape.

I really liked this movie...more than both 1 & 2 combined....and it was a great end to the series (I hope?)

Kind of sad that if it is actually any good I will never see it because the first one was so awful and Michael Bay has spent years hacking out a space in Hollywood as an emotionally devoid douchebag.

He should just produce, as I hear is pretty good at creating and adhering to schedules.
 
Michael Bay is a genius and The Tree of Life is one of the best movies of all-time. Does not compute.

Who ever said he was a genius? I'm just defending him as a director whose gonzo, don't give a fuck filmmaking style is refreshing, and in T3, is an example of just how an action movie with such a ridiculous plot should be made. Bay doesn't give a fuck about the narrative, and it is interesting that the same criticisms being hurled at T3 and Bay (no plot, meandering, too long) are some of the same criticisms being lobbed at Malick and TOL. Both filmmakers value the image over everything else, and though Bay is nowhere near Malick's level, the two both know that in film, the image is ultimately what sticks in the mind.
 
Kind of sad that if it is actually any good I will never see it because the first one was so awful and Michael Bay has spent years hacking out a space in Hollywood as an emotionally devoid douchebag.

He should just produce, as I hear is pretty good at creating and adhering to schedules.

I thought this movie had an appropriate amount of emotion....and like I said, Shia LaBeouf did a great job...I'm a big fan of his. He made me sad that he thought he was never going to see his robot friends again!
 
I thought this movie had an appropriate amount of emotion....and like I said, Shia LaBeouf did a great job...I'm a big fan of his. He made me sad that he thought he was never going to see his robot friends again![/QUOTE]

Pos rep, because this made me laugh!
 
Let's try to hold off on spoilers through the weekend.

Good discussion.
 
Back
Top