Five was a guesstimate. I do pretty much the same thing. They don't really have distinct identities in my mind, just a blob of hate and vitriol calling themselves "victims". Sorry, but Boo freakin' Hoo. Somebody on the Internet is questioning your taste. And it is pornographic. They're just indulging themselves, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when they get wierdly defensive and cagey about it. We should just be more laid back about our porn. I know I am, because I feel no shame in admitting that every time I write porn, my autocorrect changes it to pornhub because of how much more often I write that.
Because there are two of us and like five of them and so we should just give up. It's entitlement, pure and simple. We're calling out their pornographic impulses, and they don't like it, so we're the assholes. Even though we're just doing what they're doing (much more coherently, mind you) and advocating something much less reprehensible.
If I didn't think my opinion was better than yours, why would I even have it? But apparently I'm trying to "win" discussions. I'm... Not quite sure what that even means but it's been thrown at me a bunch so apparently it's some crushing, argument destroying insult. I'm also apparently trying to "debate" instead of "discuss". That's a new one, and I'm not quite sure what the distinction is there.
Bay Prime is SUCH a post 9/11 American revenge fantasy. It's so blatant and unapologetic about it, too, that the fact that people pretend he isn't (which, to be fair, admitting that it's a fantasy does spoil the fun of a fantasy to a degree) is baffling. I think it really speaks for how indulgent we are as a culture. No, we can't be into something morally questionable! Don't you know? We're all perfectly innocent virginal cherubs on the inside! I wasn't online to give you props today, but... I don't know who Nabokov is.
Yeah, I think Bellpeppers might have left. I don't really blame him, it can't be easy getting into it with you. :p Yeah, I get it, but I don't think Prime is even Steven Seagal. I think he's a whole new level of horrendously ugly revenge fantasy.
When I'm too old to be amused by idiocy, I don't know what I'll do. My view of the world will be much less favorable.
What you call stimulating is just talking to people with common sense, when we all know that people who lack common sense are the fun ones. :lol
Watching mental gymnastics at work is, in itself, amusing to me. And while... Ahem, certain movie forum regulars might be way to far gone to ever reach, I feel like I might actually be introducing some concepts about filmmaking and storytelling to a good many of the Movie forum's younger members (of which I'm sure is the majority), and that feels good. Plus, whenever I join in on the site's (theoretically) higher minded boards, it's just boring. I need some conflict, man.
Oh... Now you've got me thinking about a James Cameron Transformers movie... Mmmm... The functionality of the storytelling...
See I don't even do that with everything. I'm not even strong on auteur theory, so I don't put everything on the direction. I think I dislike Bay so much because he's fueling every negative trend that's currently afflicting movies. And he's doing so with my favorite franchise from childhood. It's like he dug up my dead dog and made him Fox News' mascot, you know?
It was definitely not that seemless sweet spot you want to hit with editing. I... I just really want to blame Michael Bay for everything. And, yes, TASM2 had a lot of the same problems. The post production processes on both those movies were definitely rushed. As were the pre-production processes. And the shooting. Basically, they were both extremely rushed for a 2014 summer release.
Well, perhaps the style is born of necessity. They're very dynamic, complex shots, but there's such little actual information being conveyed, and even that's contradicted by whatever comes next, so you have to cut it together faster than the human eye can actually follow it. And yes, it's incredibly slapdash, but the problem starts way earlier than that.
Great documentary. And, once again, I'm not trying to demean the importance of editing (which is when they actually turn what they have into a movie for all intents and purposes), just explaining my hesitance to place blame on the editing, because of how much of that process is formulated from outside influences. I'd be hard pressed to actually blame the editing for the incoherency of Michael Bay's films, because you can only do so much with what you're given.
But that Michael Bay would say that... Ugh. "Dynamic" cuts, he calls them. Dynamic things shot in a dynamic way and cut together dynamically. As if dynamicity automatically equates to quality. Or effect. It's all an affectation. Nothing more. It's all unmotivated, on every level. And I don't know where you've been, because I've lived in the deep South, in west Texas, in Guantanamo Bay, on several other military bases... And I've NEVER seen so many American flags.
I don't really think it's fair to blame the editing, though, for faults that obviously stem from what was actually shot. Plus, once you get through all the decisions the director makes (IE what gets left in, stylistic choices like slow motion, any rearrangement of scenes), of course what the writer makes (like the entirety of the movie), and all you're left with that you can really lay at the feet of editors is timing. Not that that's a bad thing. Timing is extremely important. Star Wars was apparently a boring slog until Marcia Lucas started cutting for pace, and suddenly it was academy award worthy.
I don't know if I'm quite comfortable blaming the editor, as I see a lot of people doing... They can't change the shots to make them fit together as A to B storytelling, or have an axis action line. All they can do is put them in different orders and decide how much should be used. Editing is really just timing. So, no, the blame still rests primarily with Bay, for me.
