After a very public falling out with Megan Fox and some quick reversals regrading his feelings toward 3D. Michael Bay has come under a wave of negative publicity as of late. No stranger to negativity, Bay has been fending off his critics and proving nay-sayers wrong for over a decade. I love Michael Bay films. There I said it and yes they are films. When the newest Bay film arrives it’s like a Christmas present. You wait for months to see what the man has delivered and even when it’s not of the highest order (‘TSF2’ I’m looking at you), it’s always enjoyable. So why all the anti-Bay slandering on the net and within the industry? Well it’s a story as old as tinsel town itself; jealousy. Bay’s eight films released in the US since 1995 have grossed almost 1.5 billion dollars domestically. He’s a franchise unto himself.
Let’s start at the beginning, Tony Scott. Arguably the mentor to the Anti-Bay phenomenon, during the mid-1980’s, Scott was thrust into the spotlight with the mammoth hits, ‘Top Gun’, ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ and other high concept films from that era. His glossy style over substance form of storytelling was dismissed as too ‘commercial’ and some complained ‘nauseating’ an experience. While Scott stumbled at the box-office over the years, mixing in hits with flops. He has never received the critical acclaim that is reserved for his brother, Ridley Scott.
Bay’s work was obviously heavily influenced by Scott’s style. Making him the obvious choice to helm his feature debut ‘Bad Boys’ under Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, both of whom gave Scott his shot at superstardom. Ironically Bay would be criticized for exactly the same thing that Scott had come under fire for a decade earlier. Once again critics would argue that his films were ‘all noise and gloss- no content’ affairs and other complained of the ‘nauseating’ movement of his constantly roaming camera. Yet Bay’s films have been blockbuster after blockbuster (with the exception of his most under-appreciated film ,’The Island’). The average gross of a film directed by Michael Bay is $186,972,836. Tony Scott has had a spectacular career but he’s never had the constant level of success that Michael Bay has endured for 15 years.
Both have launched the careers of superstars. Scott showcased Cruise’s aviator shades and smile to audiences across the globe. Thrusting the actor into being one of the most recognizable faces in the world. Bay gave Will Smith his first shot at headlining in his hit debut 1995’s ‘Bad Boys’. Up to that point the Fresh Prince was thought of as a sitcom comedian not an action star and certainly no sex symbol. The same could be said for Ben Affleck, whom was then widely considered the other guy in ‘Good Will Hunting’ before ‘Armageddon’ grossed 550 million worldwide. On the flip side Scott cast Christan Slater in ‘True Romance’ in the hopes of turning him into a leading man which resulted in a box office flop and effectively sent Slater into a career spin. Bay discovered Megan Fox whom he would part way with on his latest film, whether she turns out to be a star or not remains to be seen.
With the highly anticipated release of ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’, it looks like Bay’s winning streak will surely continue. This will inevitably lead to messageboards across the internet blowing up with anti-Bay threads. When will we leave the man alone and take him for what he is; the last rock-star movie director a relic from the 80’s-90’s studio system. We need mavericks like Bay pushing his very ‘American’ style to the farthest reaches of the globe. He may not be appreciated here, but there may be a little boy in a crummy theater in Mumbai watching and trying to figure out how he can become part of the movie magic. It’s time to accept that Michael Bay is the closest thing we have to a ‘Spielberg’ anymore.
Let the man make his fun movies, no one seemed to complain when the hangover was a silly fun movie, but when bay does it it’s the end end of cinema.
I agree that Michael Bay made a huge mistake for firing Megan Fox.
And he should make the 4th sequel with Megan and Shia LaBeouf and his parents.
Michael Bay got to wake up to the fans and listen to what they want.
Michael Bay screwed it up when he fired Megan Fox. He did his worst mistake to date and then he did worse getting a so-so topmodel actress wannabe that can’t act and can’t be used as a sex-symbol to promote the movie.. He broke his own magic he created on the first two movies, business wise it’s just plain stupid what he did. You don’t fire your lead actress when you got to complete your first trilogy no matter what, whatever the reason you deal with it after having filmed and sold the movie and not before.
Michael Bay lost his touch with Transformers3.
Here’s the thing, I’d prefer no new girl. Keep Sam Witwicky, because the character is important to the mythos. But once you add a new character, who is a female, well you’re basically just asking for a deja vu to happen all over again.
Also, this whole “Megan Fox got fired” thing happened last year, and yet we’re still fed news about her every day. This isn’t making Megan’s claim that Michael Bay is Hitler against her. Let sleeping dogs lie.
I love Bay just the way he is. The third Transformers is the only Movie I want to see this summer. I am allowed, as a free willed man, to choose to watch this movie, in 3D, countless times. I wish he was making a 4th.
It’s been said, but bears repeating, that if you don’t like it, you need not see it. I agree for the most part with this article 9aside from Bay picking up from Tony Scott – (sure they are both Candy, but Bay is a box of Ferrero rocher, while Scott is more like those nasty halloween toffees that are wrapped in halloween orange, or those hard grandma dish candies, or…Aspartame. Scott is a pack of sweet and low…)
Anyway, just stopped by to say hi, say hello to Jenn for me.
I used to defend Michael Bay. Bad Boys was pretty good, and as a kids movie, Armageddon was fine. But Transformers was it for me. I don’t have a problem with a hack like Bay taking a machete to some cartoon source material for fun or profit. What I do have a problem with is advertising your movies as Transformers:…..etc etc and then 80% of the movies having little to no action whatsoever, primarily focusing on a frathouse, Shia La Beouf(who is not in fact a Transformer) and/or his parents garden. So if you’re going to make popcorn movies, that’s great. Just give us more action and less crap.
I mean, if you look at the 40 minutes that was cut from the last Rambo movie, you’ll see that it’s all worthless dialogue. Michael Bay should take a cue from sly. He’ll never be an auteur, but he is good at marketing. If he could at least deliver what was advertised, I’d hate him a lot less.
The first time I’ve heard the complaint that Bay wasn’t as Bay as Bay should have been. Pretty different viewpoint from why most people hate him, and I agree with your argument.
As a film fan and student, I absolutely love the works of guys like Tarantino, Scorsese, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Goddard and Ford. But if it wasn’t for guys like Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, Cameron, the Scotts and Bay, I wouldn’t have gotten into film in the first place. I honestly feel you need both for each type of film to survive. I can actually name Spellbound, Casino, Terminator, Boogie NIghts, Star Wars and Transformers as the reasons that made me start a career in the same field. It is unfortunate that the more interesting meals are overshadowed by the candy, but that’s not the filmmakers’ fault. Why should they be punished for doing something they love (their way, no less) and be successful at it? And no, success is not marked by how much money they make or how many awards it gets, but if people can sit down and watch them and get enjoyment every time! So, I think we all just need to calm down and get the best of both worlds. Eat the vegetables and the candy, I say!
I really have to disagree with you here…
Nobodys trying to make any excuses….as if anyone has a reason to make excuses to you anyhow.
It’s really none of your business what anybody wants to watch or why.
No one has to justify or prove anything to you, so you need to get over yourself right there.
Some kind of god complex maybe, where everyone has to answer to you or suffer your wrath?
No, it doesn’t matter why people want to see his movies, the point is they do. End of story.
As the author of this piece stated, there’s plenty of other movies that come out, sure to fill the needs of people like you that require “some type of story that isn’t entirely brainless, or relatable characters”
Because believe it or not, some of us enjoy those kinds of films from time to time too :::gasp:::
But other times, we just like to see things go boom, and see flashy special effects, and we like to lose ourselves in the visual fantasy…and not have to worry about why there isn’t some deep, complex intertwining plot, or why the casting department didn’t try to be more subtle and ironic in their casting decisions.
Or why the writer’s weren’t more subtle and ironic in their humor for that matter.
Sometimes we just want to enjoy our movies, at our choice, without having to to answer to or explain ourselves to every jackass on the internet that feels we have to justify our reasons for enjoying a movie, or listening to him whine like a child when someone doesn’t agree with him.
So kindly oblige.
So the basis of your long winded, sloppy and uninformative argument is that Americans are moronic for their love of the man’s films? The $300 million average foreign gross for his films means that ‘moronic’ audiences worldwide have embraced his films. Please do your research before commenting. All foreign grosses can be viewed at boxofficemojo.
That is all.
The only reason my argument was ever “sloppy” was due to posting from a phone, which is the sole purpose of typos that shouldn’t be there. Regardless, for having such an “uninformative argument”, you strictly focused on my comments towards Americans and completely ignored the VALID reasons I listed as to why Bay is a horrible director. True, the films still collectively grosses a substantial margine over seas, but when you break down the dollars from each country, especially one as highly populated as China, America still looks extremely retarded in comparison, given that its domestic gross is almost more than its entire foreign gross.
Let’s say I’m wrong about the box office and comparison of countries, let’s do that… it still doesn’t mean I’m wrong about Bay being a hack. Every single one of his detractors can give you VALID reasons for why they’re so hard on them… it’s simple, because he sucks.
Your opinion. And you’re right, it is VALID. Just as valid as this article. I’m glad you’ve stopped trying to back yourself up with #’s. One thing that’s interesting about arguments like these to me is ‘art house’ people (no offense meant) are very outspoken about how they hate ‘blockbusters’, which Bay is the poster child for. Why is there no one complaining about ‘art house’ movies? They just don’t care and so don’t go, so there is no dialogue back and forth, simply one side being pushed down and the other side flailing wildly in opposition. That I think is a shame on both counts. Instead of presenting your VALID argument on good terms you have gone off the deep end. Every movie should have a chance, from ‘Black Swan’ to ‘Transformers’, each should be taken seriously and enjoyed for what they are, and for what makes them the same and different. We have never attacked a movie here based on genre or who was behind its creation (well ok I admit to Twilight but that was heat of the moment). But back to those China #’s, per person China is very poor as compared to other western states, their movies never earn triple digit $’s.
Transformers 2 was China’s biggest hit ever in 2009 with $59 million. A normal chinese hit (not a foreign film) will earn anywhere from $30 to $60 million on the high end. They also limit foreign movies to 20 a year, which must have some impact on those numbers, although I couldn’t say what that would be.
I don’t hate blockbusters, in fact, I’ve been waiting for the right combination of popcorn and intelligence for the blockbuster genre, which I got with District 9, but movies like that are so far and few between these days, that’s impossible to reach that level of consistency due to the studios controlling any movie that has an inflated budget. This is one of the reasons I’ve come to quickly appreciate Neill Blomkamp as a film maker, as he refuses to take on any film in which he doesn’t get an ownership stake in. Also, I wouldn’t called “Black Swan” an arthouse film, it’s just as mainstream as any other relatively popular piece of American cinema that came out this year, people just tag Aronofsky with that label, because they don’t dive any deeper into that medium of film making other than what’s on the surface, which he happens to be.
If I have any problems with the current state of blockbusters, it’s the constant need to require $100-$200 million budgets, PG-13 ratings, and scripts completely devoid of life and creativity. It’s not just Bay who’s the problem, even guys like Christopher Nolan and JJ Abrams are a problem. It seems like the days of getting blockbusters like RoboCop, Starship Troopers, The Thing, The Fly, etc, etc. are gone… at least until other CREATIVE film makers decide to follow Blomkamp’s philosophy of only needing $30 million to make a visually rich film, while incorporating a halfway decent script at the same time.
That’s one of the strangest arguments I’ve ever heard. You don’t like that they spend $100-$200 million on a movie and instead think they should spend only $30 million? The only thing I can get out of that is you believe by pushing the director to take more creative means to get something to the screen rather than throwing money at it will result in better films. Maybe, in reality you’d probably end up with movies that didn’t quite get to where they wanted to go. Granted CGI and $$ do create problems in the ‘even though you can, doesn’t mean you should’ area, going in the opposite direction wouldn’t fix the problems of untalented writing. Everyone only wants movies to be made that they like, that’s not just you, that’s me as well. Why would I want them to spend time and money on crap I’ll never watch? But I think the all-time best anti-Michael Bay thing I’ve heard: Michael Bay sucks, but Paul Verhoeven is a genius. I’ll agree with you on the last part.
No sir, you are the idiot.
There are many other films for you to watch. Megan fox is amazing, Michael is incredible, and Shia is hilarious. The effects are the best you will ever see, and i laughed my ass off the entire movie.
Listen idiot, we don’t care. I’m a film maker, and so are you – so stop being so pissy and go and make the CREATIVE films you want to see, and I’ll do the same. If you don’t want to watch TF3, don’t come to the theater. I’ll be there, and if I have to hear you moan about the film after I’ve paid my good money to see it, I will find you and take a huge shit on your lap.
Shut-Up.
Yes, it all has to do with his movies making so much money. That’s the reason everyone hates the movies this guy makes.
It has nothing to do with his repetitive action sequences and relying on inflated budgets and an enedless amount of napalm. It has nothing to do with his superluous attempts at juvenile humor, like a Mother eating weed brownies and acting belligerent, or saying “shit” over and over a million times, even though it wore thin the first two times she said it. It has nothing to do with slapping a pair of testicles onto a robot, or a robot dry humping Megan Fox’s leg. Or better yet, it has nothing to do with him casting either 1.) mega stars with no realistic personalties what-so-ever (Bad Boys and Bad Boys II), or spray-tan, face-raped makeup machines like Megan Fox and now this Rosie chick, who is a Victoria’s Secret model, and the idea of casting real actors is a concept completely foreign to Michael Bay’s methfucked brain.
The funny thing is, I could probably delivery several more paragraphs like this, that provides legitimate, substantial reasons why people don’t like Michael Bay. Am I disappointed by the fact that he makes money off these movies? Not really… I don’t care if the man makes money, so that’s a major misconception on this “journalist’s” part. If anything, I’m more disappointed with the moronic Americans that find this aborted attempt as film making “entertaining.” And it’s always the same excuse: “Oh, I know what I’m getting with a Michael Bay movie, brainless action, so I just enjoy my popcorn and laugh.” What that person is really saying is: “You’re actually right that Michael Bay is terrible, but since I’m as equally dense as Bay himself, I’ll just make up some excuse that allows you to understand that I acknlowedge his movies as brainless, since I can’t come up with anything to actually defend his piece of shit films.” It’s always the same tired excuse. It’s as if it’s too much for people like myself to ask for some type of story that isn’t entirely brainless, or relatable characters.
Michael Bay DOES suck. And he deserves every bit of criticism that comes his way.
You’re the idiot here for thinking people are brainless for enjoying his films. His films are great and ARE entertaining whether you think so or not. People are allowed to have opinions and shouldn’t be insulted for having different opinions then yours. Seriously, grow up. He has his own style of film and that involves lots and lots of action and jaw dropping visuals. Nobody asked for you to like his movies. The fact that you came across this thread is proof enough that you’re just trolling threads brought up over Bay and his films. get a life and go watch movies that actually interest you and stop trying to act intelligent over the internet because it’s not working at all.