Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by pie125, Jun 24, 2014.
why critics don't like michael bay?
Because he makes mediocre movies.
Is this a question or...?
And apparently the most critic's common opinion as well.
That's really the only answer to the question. Michael Bay simply does not make films that respond well critically.
Expected an answer
Received a question
Indeed... But, I've only seen his Transformers films and that's it. I've seen a bit of Armageddon, but from what I saw, honestly it looked like another disaster film. But yeah, most critics are "Bay Haters". They simply don't like a film because, well, "Bay".
Cause he's Micheal Bay
Exactly my thoughts. The OP really should take notice of question marks.
Because Pearl Harbor and ROTF mostly.
Oh yeah, totally. These movies are on par with sci-fi classics like Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it's only because they are Michael Bay films that they get poor reviews. We all know that if Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan churned out the cinematic masterpiece that is Revenge of the Fallen, critics would have loved it! RIGHT?!
Unlike me and you critics have to watch all the films. Which means they have a larger pool of films to compare something to than we do. If the Bay films just seem to be treading the same old worn out waters while other films are doing something more interesting then critics aren't going to like the Bay film as much as the other film.
Also seeing a ton of special effects every year makes it harder for critics to be impressed by effects alone. While Bay is top notch at visual aspect of film making when it comes to action, story telling, developing interesting villains, knowing what jokes will work, and several other elements just aren't his strong point as a film maker.
Bay films also tend to get a little too long because for some reason Bay just doesn't believe in extended directors cut of a film so things get thrown in at seem like padding in the theatrical release that would feel like extras on a home release.
Bay also has bit of bad luck in that his rise was about the same time as the quality of film making went down. Instead of studio heads saying make me a great movie the Hollywood motto changed to just make me a buck by not taking chances that someone will not get it or leave the theater unhappy because you didn't give them a clear cut happy ending. In a different era he might have been viewed better.
No because he actually makes fun summer movies that apparently critics dont like.
Seriously, wtf, man.
Enjoy them all you want, but don't fool yourself - these aren't works of art. It shouldn't be that difficult to determine why film critics don't particularly like Bay's movies.
That's like asking why a gourmet might not like McDonalds, even though a Big Mac can be pretty satisfying to most of us when we're in the right mood.
When somebody goes and makes brainless, awesome fun, for fun's sake, using a medium on which your entire career of waxing eloquent and pretending to be an art-snob depends upon....apparently it is very offensive.
Mostly I just wonder why the fuck would anybody WANT to be an art snob. Art snobs are pathetic and usually miss the point entirely, just ask an artist.
Yet they do like fun summer movies like Indianna Jones and Star Wars and the Avengers. Strange, isn't it?
Yes, caring about storytelling is "snobbish".
Absolutely, ask the people that have the most reason to lob hate at critics. They're probably the most objective viewpoint you could ever find.
Indiana Jones and Star Wars were not critical successes. They were initially reviewed as quite meh, and both series almost didn't get green-lit because the executives didn't think they had any potential.
Nevermind the Episodes 1,2,3 and Crystal Skull.
You really should pick better examples....lol
I'm curious. If a "fun summer movie", suggesting it's merits are not in storytelling or acting, isn't mediocre, what is?
I think you're taking this a bit far. There's nothing wrong with prefering a little more substance to what you happen to enjoy, be it films, or whatever. Transformers, even.
I mean, didn't we all prefer Transformers to Go-Bots back in the day? Does that make us "robot snobs"?
Frankly I don't know why so many people here get so butthurt about people not loving Bay films. Just enjoy what you like, don't worry about it so much.
Avatar had better editing and pacing than ROTF, in every other way, they were about equal. I remember critics bashing Bay for doing some of the same things Avatar was praised for. ROTF wasn't as bad as critics made it out to be, and Avatar wasn't as good as it was made out to be. Bryan Singer actually got critical acclaim for the turd that was Superman Returns... So while Bay IS NOT a the best filmmaker, he does get knocked by critics for things they ignore or praise others for. Critics do tend to be harsher on his movies. Not to say he makes cinematic masterpieces, but if the point is to be entertained and have the audience like your film, he does a great job. His movies typically do way better than your would expect.
This is one of the best posts I've ever read about Bay. Bravo sir.
Separate names with a comma.