Does the movie lack style?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by MegaMoonMan, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. MegaMoonMan

    MegaMoonMan www.megamoonman.com TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Posts:
    17,237
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +31
    Ebay:
    YouTube:
    Most movies of this genre seem to have an overlying "style" - editing effects, lighting, intros, cuts between scenes, general things of that nature. It's what sets it apart from other films, and makes you realize what it is without having to see major characters or things of that nature. It's got a "feeling".

    I don't think this movie has any of that, and I feel that that's its biggest flaw. I can accept plotholes, bad acting here and there, and boring story elements, but the movie feels like it has no underlying cohesiveness tying it all together, like a "soul".

    The lack of style makes this movie forgettable IMO. Not bad, just unmemorable. Do you know what I mean?
     
  2. DaggersRage

    DaggersRage Autistic bastard.

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Does it count that the giant robots blend well with the movie and cast?

    I might be having trouble figuring out what you mean, can you use some movies as an example?
     
  3. smkspy

    smkspy is one nice fucking kitty

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Posts:
    20,316
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +81
    It has Michael Bay's style, which unfortunately is the same for EVERY movie that he does.
     
  4. Squall42080

    Squall42080 Autobot RSX Type-S

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Posts:
    4,514
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Likes:
    +12
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    Flickr:
    YouTube:
    I have to disagree...but maybe I'm not quite sure what your talking about.

    The movie was obviously a Michael Bay movie. If you were to watch the movie...just based on lighting...its a Michael Bay movie. His movies usually have that "burnt" look to the sky...like the air is real dry...thats the best way I can describe it...

    The introduction to the Allspark, the action, the fight scenes, the chase scenes. Watch any of his other movies...it has the same types of "Hero" shots, and same type of camera movement...this is evident in all three transformations of Optimus Prime.

    The score was very cohesive...the same theme was repeated multiple times, and in different ways. Whether the scene was an obvious hero scene, or sad scene, or just an introduction, the score had that theme in there. This is very similar to other hero/action movies like Spiderman, Batman Begins, Superman, etc. Very identifiable.
     
  5. nYcet824

    nYcet824 The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Posts:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Likes:
    +0
    hmm...im not quite sure what you mean.
     
  6. MegaMoonMan

    MegaMoonMan www.megamoonman.com TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Posts:
    17,237
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +31
    Ebay:
    YouTube:
    I know what you all mean about the "Micheal Bay" style, but I don't really consider it a full-fledged style...it's more of a subdued feeling, the sort of look that his movies have. There's no real soul behind it, like a true Spielberg film would have. Maybe I just don't consider the "Michael Bay" a true style because deep down I don't like it, I dunno.

    I just felt like a husk of a movie to me, with no real emotional filler. The robot visuals were certainly great. The editing during certain parts was crap, and sure didn't lend to the overall positive aesthetic of the film. I didn't really feel any emotional attachment to the film, like I felt I should have.

    Some good examples of style:

    Spielberg movies
    Star Wars
    Sin City
    300
    Pulp Fiction

    Even the G1 cartoon had cheesy style, with the autobot/decepticon logo cuts, the silly dialog, and the bad plots. I'm not saying they should try to emulate that, but they could take some hints from it.

    Maybe the script was to blame, perhaps it was a combination of things. I really wanted to love this movie, and all the things that the rabid fanboys were moaning about didn't bother me in the slightest, but it just didn't make the cut for me. It felt bland, dull, and flat.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2007
  7. Omnibus Prime

    Omnibus Prime I'm too old for this shit TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Posts:
    6,518
    Trophy Points:
    266
    Likes:
    +0
    I know what you mean about Michael Bay's style, such as it is, but I almost had to keep reminding myself that this was a Bay movie while watching it. It was the least Bay of Bay's movies, IMO, if that makes sense. There were parts that were, "Yep..totally Bay moment" but on the whole it just wasn't as blatant as the rest. I dunno if that has anything to do with Spielberg's influence or not..it's not even necessarily a good or bad thing as, by and large, I like Bay's movies, so it's not like a lack of 'Bayness' automatically must be a good thing.
    Bay's two misses IMO were Armageddon and Pearl Harbor, the former taking itself too seriously in parts, the latter simply too serious of subject matter to be handled by Bay in the first place, precisely because he can't do serious. The rest are all just FUN. TF is not serious by a mile, and doesn't pretend to be so either, so it just..works.
     
  8. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    I think when you contrast Bay's style to Speilberg's, you're bound to come to the conclusion that he either has no style or it's a poor style. There's really just too much of a gap in talent to measure one against the other.

    That being said, I agree with you that it had not style, but I felt like that was the case in the same way that things like reality TV and rap videos have no style. That is, they have very specific traits that distinquish them from other properties / creative forces, but they're not necessarily 'good' traits.

    I think Bay worked out all right, but he definitely wouldn't have been my first (or second or third) choice.

    I also agree that having a poor script, etc., can negatively affect the style, although the reverse is true also. The movies you named were all good films in addition to being stylized--but I loved Chronicles of Riddick and Crank in large part because of their 'style,' despite being relatively weak films otherwise.
     
  9. Grimlock_13

    Grimlock_13 Reformed Geewunner

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Posts:
    23,608
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    Likes:
    +86
    I'm the opposite, I thought the movie had tons of style, but the plotholes and bad acting definitely got on my nerves. Not enough to not enjoy the movie however.
     
  10. darthrage

    darthrage Leader Class

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,441
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    are you kidding me? Its a Michael Bay movie. Its got style written all over it. The guy is a very visual director. He's one of those style over substance directors and this movie's style conquers all
     
  11. MegaMoonMan

    MegaMoonMan www.megamoonman.com TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Posts:
    17,237
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +31
    Ebay:
    YouTube:
    I think he's more like one of those style NOR substance kind of directors. It's all generic closeups and explosions with him.

    However, the more I think about it, the more I want to blame the script for the lack of style. There could have been things written into it that would have lent to the stylistic touches.
     
  12. Ziero

    Ziero TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    4,790
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Likes:
    +0
    Maybe the lack of style *is* the style for Bay?
     
  13. Cory Bauer

    Cory Bauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Posts:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Likes:
    +0
    The one thing Michael Bay's Transformers is by no means lacking is style. Visually, it's got this beautiful gritty, sexy, textured thing going on all throughout, including the art design of the robots & sets. It's just a gorgeous movie. I think what you're looking for is substance, which you'll find a lack of in all popcorn flicks. — where fun comes before coherency.
     
  14. Omnibus Prime

    Omnibus Prime I'm too old for this shit TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Posts:
    6,518
    Trophy Points:
    266
    Likes:
    +0
    Aha! That's it...Bay is post-style, man. Purposely lacking in theme and cohesion to set him apart from all those film nerds like Spielberg and Scorsese.
     
  15. KA

    KA PENIS GOES WHERE?!!

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Posts:
    23,225
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +17
    heh. id think bay'd be more pissed abt ppl accusing him for lack of style rather than criticism on his treatment of TFs.
     
  16. darthrage

    darthrage Leader Class

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,441
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    that's right Michael Bay makes things look sexy. He can make a car chase look sexy. Hell, he can make an even make a Mountain Dew pop machine look sexy
     
  17. MegaMoonMan

    MegaMoonMan www.megamoonman.com TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Posts:
    17,237
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +31
    Ebay:
    YouTube:
    IMO style should be a cohesive thing that sets a film apart - I just don't see this film as having that. There should be a running theme, a sense of cohesion that ties it all together - I saw none of that. I saw different scenes that may have fit together story-wise, but they just didn't flow into each other in any sort of stylistic manner. That's the only way I can explain what I mean.

    I KNOW what substance is, and this film has little of that, I'll agree, but I'm not talking about substance. Micheal Bay simply has a very broad, generic style to his stuff, there's nothing that really sets his explosions, sets, and attitude apart from any other IMO. His style may be pretty, but it's generic. As far as the robot designs, after all the people BLAMING him for the designs he didn't create, now you want to give him credit for them?

    IMO, style needs not be lacking in a popcorn flick. Substance isn't always important, but a film needs a soul.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2007
  18. Cory Bauer

    Cory Bauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Posts:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Likes:
    +0
    I think you hit the nail on the head back here, dude:
    Michael Bay films definitely have a style, I just don't think it's one you're fond of. It's also one that's frequently copied, which may be why you find it to be "generic". Regarding the designs, he didn't do the work but he commanded the art direction, and kept the designers working till they gave him what he wanted. So in that sense, the designs are the way they are because of him.
     
  19. MegaMoonMan

    MegaMoonMan www.megamoonman.com TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Posts:
    17,237
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +31
    Ebay:
    YouTube:
    Then I guess I've fallen into the "I hate Bay" camp, or at least the "I hate his style" camp. His style (or lack thereof) has caused this movie to be a soulless husk of what it could have been, visual choices aside.

    I hope a new director is named for part 2, but I don't see that happening.
     
  20. Hi Q

    Hi Q I don't want a user title

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Posts:
    760
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +1
    I've read the whole thread, but don't understand it. Specific style examples please?
     

Share This Page