Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Codimus Prime, Jul 18, 2007.
Very interesting read. I think the writer actually did a pretty good job of summing up my feelings about Bay's directorial vision. Well written article; definitely worth a few minutes of thinking and consideration.
I stopped reading after "Is Michael Bay the devil?"
Bay gets some of the sharpest looking shots around, and pretty much defined the "car commercial" sleek look, but I didn't like his editing during the fight scenes. OR, maybe we should blame ILM for only showing half of the robots and blurring them out? I dunno
Well, that's a real shame, because you missed out on a very interesting and thought-provoking article.
It's also sort of embarrassing, because you took that line riduclously out of context. Go see where and how the article's author uses it.
Give it a second shot. Try expanding your mind.
This guy really articulates my own feelings about Bay's direction, which have been spinning around my head since I saw the movie last night. He's hit the nail on the head, and has made a lot of great observation/analogies. His comparison between bad comedies and bad action films is a nice touch.
And it's so true. Everything in Transformers looked glossy and sexy and great for the 3 seconds or less it was up on screen... however, none of it had any context, meaning or staying power in the overall construction of the story.
I remember very clearly that there was this ONE shot that jumped out at me during the last battle. It was a long wide crane shot showing the entire street, as Megatron and Prime beat the hell out each other in the narrow corridor of buildings.
It only lasted about 2 seconds, but it was like a breath of fresh air. I could finally actually see what the hell was really going on in one of the Transformer slamdowns... no excessive blurring or cropping or extreme angles or slow motion or constant swooping camera movement... just a nice clear shot of the action, while also gave a nice sense of scale with the surroundings.
It was so out of character with the rest of the movie, I have to assume that it was shot by a second unit director or something. It struck me immediately how desperately the movie needed more of that sort of thing.
Well, here's hoping that Bay isn't doing the sequels (as suggested by a statement he released)... maybe we'll get a pleasant surprise, and a better movie out of it.
Nice read, lots of truth to it too.
I don't feel any different after reading it though...it's a weird feeling.
And yeah... that's a perfect example of how sometimes knowing a little is worse than knowing nothing at all. Read the rest of the article. It's hilarious how you totally missed the entire point of the article by assuming you knew what it was about from the opening sentence.
Interesting read, even though I don't fully agree with it.
Though I can fully understand why someone would have problem with Bay's directing and visual style, it doesn't really bother me at all. To each his own I guess.
I scrolled down all the way after seeing the part where he said that he didn't see Bad Boys and The Island only to see he wrote alot more. How can he write so much stuff without seeing all of his films, especially his very first film and the last film he made before Transformers. For that, he loses all credibility LOL!
Bay should read this, and pay attention.
Hmm... nice read and a very well written and thought out article. What's scarry is that, like everyone else, the writer has articulated my own fealings about Bay's directorial style. The funny thing is, outside of that, I really don't feel any differently. His style is still his style and I still feel like Transformers was a good movie... even if it did seem 'overly glossy'.
Eh. I believe most of the article. I'm just not sure if Bay knows he's doing it.
Meh, this guy raises the same points about Michael Bay that have been discussed ad nauseum. He just packages it into an essay format. Throw in your occasional unconventional verb or phrase and you've got yourself a nice little anti-Michael Bay diatribe that reaks of veiled envy.
Seriously, notice the writer never really goes into detail about any of Bay's films except for Pearl Harbor. And I'm no blind Michael Bay supporter, but if you're going to rip the man please back up your opinions with clear cut examples. Transformers had a good story and setup IMHO and is unlike any of Michael Bay's previous movies. To lump all of Bay's movies into one "glossy" main stream, commercially bland mess is not only inaccurate but makes the writer of this article sound like a complete hater.
Has this guy even seen Transformers? Or did he just see the trailer and chalk it up as another one of those "Bay films".
I agree with you. Some good points about MB are laid out in an intelligent manner on one side (although I thought a lot of it was stating the obvious) but read a little bit deeper and it turns out to be a flaming essay. He talks about Bays style, and then trashes it saying it isn't even a style. He also states not seeing several of Bays film and still thinks he is able to clearly judge him. I am also not a blind supporter of MB by any means, but his job is to make the scenes look good and flow. I enjoyed TFs a lot, but it did have problems and I think a lot of them is actually the writers.
I don't think two films counts has several.
I've seen all of bay's films and to only mention one is perfectly acceptable since they are basicly the same movie structurely and visually.
I agree with the author wholeheartedly. Bay makes great action commercials, but he doesn't know how to tell a story.
Honestly, for me, it was just the damn blur, which made the cg look fake in some parts (Blackout tf'ing over Spike), and the fact that the robots weren't in frame for certain scenes so you couldnt see what was going on (coupled with the blur). For instance, Ratchet sawing Brawl. It would have been cool to see the saw blades folf out and him jump through the air better.
Otherwise, I don't really have any complaints.
I don't know if it's that he doesn't know how so much as it is his priorities are off-kilter. Given the choice between stringing a series of shots together that each look gorgeous in their own right but don't really flow into one another, or editing a series a shots that flow but aren't each visually stunning, he'll take the former 9 out of 10 times.
Of course, his taking visually stunning shots destroys his storytelling ability. Thats the whole reason the night/day issues come up so much. He's more concerned with the shot that he's filming rather than the context of the shot in relation to one before or after.
It just seems like Bay could use another editor in the editing booth. He's got all the visually stunning shots you could ask for but could use some zoom out shots to give the audience a better sense of story scope, scale and perspective. It's like those comic books you get that have nothing but splash pages and characters spillingout of the panels. It's cool when it's done in spurts but loses it's appeal when that's all you see.
Separate names with a comma.