While waiting for a screening of footage from Journey from the Center of the Earth 3D at WonderCon, I was in a discussion with a couple people about Transformers. Someone called Michael Bay a hack and I had an adverse reaction. I snapped, and for almost no reason. I’m not a huge fan of Michael Bay, or his films, but at the same time, I appreciate his cinematic efforts more than most educated movie fanatics. I later realized it was probably because of the usage of the term “Hack”. I’ve heard many people call Michael Bay a hack over the years, but truth is…
Michael Bay is NOT a Hack!
Let’s first look at some of the definitions of the word “Hack”:
- One who works for hire
- A person who works solely for mercenary reasons
- Someone who works on order
- A person who aims solely for commercial success
- To be exposed or offered or to common use for hire; to turn prostitute.
- To use frequently and indiscriminately, so as to render trite and commonplace.
Taking a quick look at the definitions listed above, one will immediately see that Michael Bay is NOT a hack.
Some people may argue that Bay is someone “who aims solely for commercial success”. Bay shoots for commercial success just as much as Sam Rami shot for commercial success on the Spider-Man films. Bay makes big action films, with big budgets, which therefor must hit all four quadrants in order to make their money back. This is something that is genre specific, not Bay specific. Michael Bay brings a unique style which could not be classified as the safe and most commercial way to shoot a movie, therefor he is not solely shooting for commercial success.
Bay’s style of explosion-filled fast-cutting music video meets commercial style filmmaking is far from the norm. I can’t think of another director who creates films that look and feel like a Michael Bay film.
If you hear any interview with Bay, or actors or crew that have worked with him, you will quickly realize his enthusiasm for making his style of movies. He’s also not the type of guy to take on any project which is offered to him.
You can argue that Bay’s films are not high art.
You can argue that the screenplay/stories behind his movies is generic or stock.
But one thing you can not say is that Michael Bay is a hack.
Who is a hack?
On example I call out on a regular basis is Brett Ranter. He’s the typical work-for-hire director. His films aren’t necessarily horrible, they are competently made, but lack anything above or beyond that.
So please… say Michael Bay creates horrible films. Say that he’s a horrible director (which actually also isn’t true, he’s technologically proficient and able to handle huge action set pieces and has a style that is uniquely his own). You can say that he his source material is generic and cliche. But don’t call him a hack!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
He’s not a hack. He’s a whore. There’s a difference. Transformers is a two hour commercial for a wide array of products. He also does some ACTUAL commercial work himself. AWESOME! Micheal Bay is not an artist, he’s an ad man and a people pleaser.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
man the misuse of terms is prevalent in every genre and in every field. “Hack” becomes a term for dislike as opposed to true meaning. It comes with the territory and means that your audience is ignorant to the true usage. My advice? It’s not that hectic and I’m sure Bay is not that concerned.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Seriously, the guy lives in a lush pad and does supermodels. Find someone who actually needs defending.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Anyone who takes a great story like Transformers and adds big breasted woman, robots pissing on persians and a black robot for no reason is a hack.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
No one can ever do Pearl Harbor again. He made a 3 hour long, epic, “hunk of shit” on such a huge scale, that no one can try again for a long time. What deserved to be a great film was a complete waste. I’ve hated him ever since.
He may not be a hack by those definitions but he sure hacked that film to pieces, along with most of his others. I do agree that he believes strongly in what he is doing so I have to give him that.
Also, you are spot on about Brett Ratner. Man, I hate that guy.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Michael Bay is no Kubrick, but you can tell he loves what he does. That may be blowing shit up, but Transformers was a fun movie, and the closest thing we got to a good blockbuster last year, what with all the shitty threequels (except Bourne of course). there’s certainly worse directors out there.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dont love him or hate him…transformers was good…it was what i expected, a good summer blockbuster….and about the black robot from a few posts above me…I cant remember the bots name…ironhide maybe?….but he was “black” in the cartoon as well…and transformers(the cartoon) was just a big advert for the toyline…so who cares
February 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
- A person who aims solely for commercial success
is there any proof that he does not?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I love Michael Bay, I cant say i understand why everyone hates him? Let me see any of you make a film for $150 million and then you can talk.
Compared to UWE BOLL, Micheal bay is the greatest director who has ever lived.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
i totally agree peter. i think Bay has the greatest job in the world, and is having fun with it. i think he makes his films for himself, as much as he does for the audience.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
He may not be a hack, but he sure as hell is an ass.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Joe: if his sole aim was for commercial sucess, then he would make a more traditional stylized film like Brett Ratner.
Robocop: The definition of whore is someone who trades sexual favors for money. So no, Michael Bay is not a whore either. Transformers was made for $150 million. Compare that to all the threequels that premiered last Summer. Spider-Man 3 was made for over $350 million. If product placement can bring a budget down, allowing for more set pieces, then I’m all for it as long as it doesn’t become annoying. I will admit that some of the product placement in The Island was overboard. But I think the way it was handled in Transformers was fine.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
ILM and co.’s digital/visual effects (Oscar-winner to everyone but the academy) made Transformers what it was, everything else was underwhelming. Although, LeBeouf wasn’t bad. Ooh, look… asplosions! He kinda does fit those “hack” definitions to me, but I don’t hate the guy, call him that or really even care. There are worse out there…
February 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
In regards to film…if Michael Bay isn’t a hack then he is the King of All Hacks. By your definition a “hack” is someone who aims solely for commercial success. Well, I’d like to know why you think Bay does anything BUT aim for commercial success.
While he does, as you say, have a very unique style it is completely devoid of meaning or substance. The photography, the set designs, the action, the romance, the actors….EVERYTHING serves to entertain or “wow” the audience. Michael Bay’s films never attempt to say ANYTHING, ever, about life, existence, love, etc.
And that is the point of art…to EXPRESS…..to “say” something truthful about the world…and Micheal Bay’s films do not EXPRESS anything. Ever.
But that’s where I draw the line.
To me there’s a difference between a “film” and a “movie.”
A film is art. A movie is entertainment.
Let’s be fair. Michael Bay makes one hell of a movie.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I think you’re missing the seventh bullet for the Hack definition:
“Someone who is Michael Bay”
So unless Michael Bay is Michael… oh wait.
*Zing*!
February 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Watch The Rock to see what Michael Bay can do with a half descent screenplay. I think the problem is most peopel confuse the source material with Bay’s final product. He is not a writer/director in the sense of Quentin Tarantino. Sure, he probably does have input. But looking him purely as a director, his action sequences are unmatched. Watch some of his movies with the sound on mute, and you will come to appreciate how good of a visual director Bay actually is.
Matthew: Bay aims for commercial success just as much as Sam Raimi aimed for commercial success on the Spider-Man films. No more. Remember, we’re talking direction, not story. Also, Bay’s style is counter to that of mainstream Hollywood, and thus if he were to aim solely for commercial success, he wouldn’t be as in your face, and you produce something more in line with the vannilla style of Brett Ratner.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Michael Bay sucks and so does this article.
Instead of putting up a post like this, please put up more Sexman links, thank you.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I said it once before on of these comment sections and I say it again,
There’s no one in Hollywood that has a better scene composition in his shots than Michael Bay, period. His stories might be garbage and generic, but his visual sense is unmatched. and you might say that his films are not in the end entirely art, but every single one of his shots for me is an art.
and in case someone said ILM/DD made transformers what it is… think about it this way: how many Michael Bay movies have crappy vfx work??? NONE. No matter what, this guy pushes the VFX studios to serve him. Meanwhile we have seen pretty crappy VFX work from the same studios on different movies.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I can’t seem to find it now, but 7 or 8 years ago there was a hilarious and nasty back and forth in Rolling Stone when Michael Bay took issue with film critic Peter Travers referring to some of his work as a “spirit-deadening hack job.” Travers responded by going through the definition of a hack and arguing why Bay was, indeed, a “hack.”
February 26th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
But then again, you’re the guy who regularly complains about the “ruining” of the He-Man and GI Joe franchises by movies, as if those franchises had some original content or point beyond just selling toys to gullible kids that could be “ruined”.
So, um…. yeah.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Issac: People would have said the same thing two years ago before Transformers, but look how many people now care about that movie franchise.
Attacking my past opinions on toy-to-film adaptations instead of the subject matter at hand is a fallacy.
What’s more pathedic? My opinions of how Paramount is ruining a live-action movie adaptation of GI Joe or the fact that you read my opinions of how Paramount is ruining a live-action movie adaptation of GI Joe? Let’s get back on topic:
Michael Bay is NOT a Hack!
February 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Ok wow, why is calling Michael Bay a hack the new “SNAKES ON A PLANE”.
The ones that call him a hack are usually the snobby teens over at film schools who would rather salivate at Wes Anderson’s balls.
Like someone else said, he’s no Kubrick, but he sure as hell is no Uwe either.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
He’s most definitely a fucking hack.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Matthew: Can’t a painting just be a painting? I’ve never understood the idea that art HAS to be saying something. I draw and play around in Photoshop because I can. They don’t generally have any deeper meaning outside of “Hey, that looks pretty fucking cool”
Does that make me any less of artist?
I can’t make a movie like Bay. He’s got his own style, he’s got a method to the way he makes his movies, and he even goes so far as to showing his works to the public. How can he not be an artist then?
February 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“There’s no one in Hollywood that has a better scene composition in his shots than Michael Bay, period.” ~shora
There is no controversy here. No argument. Your wrong.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Michael Bay is a hack.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Directing is not just “shots”, or the visual aspect of a film. The director is responsible for the tone of the film, the actors performances, pacing, and a million other decisions that affect the way the story is told. Scorcese, Spielberg, Coppola, and dozen of other top-shelf directors aren’t known as such for the “look” of their films. It’s the overall product.
So goody for Bay. He has one part of the job down.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I think it’s amusing that you’ve consulted the dictionary today Peter. It’s been around for ages, but either way literal, black-and-white definitions may not apply, but sentiments do.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Kapit: You have a good point, so let me elaborate on my previous position…
I, too, draw and play around in photoshop ALL THE TIME simply because I can…hell, its fun and looks cool. Would I call it art? Sure….but more like the kind of art a grandmother might make knitting a pair of mittens.
But would I call it Art with a captial “A”? Hell no. In my opinion, real art doesn’t require any kind of technical talent. It’s not about making the most realistic painting (or in this case, “special effects”). And yes…I would go as far as calling many paintings hanging up in historic art museums “just paintings.” They may be considered art by some for the technique or time period in which they were made but to me, if it’s not bold, clever, or creative it’s not Art.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Michael Bay is totally a hack. I mean common all his movies sucked.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Wow, thank god for this article. This will turn the industry on it’s head and convince thousands (read: two people) that Michael Bay is indeed an amazing director.
No thanks. Bay is overhyped and underperforming. If you like Transformers fine, but don’t go telling people that Bay is an amazing and noteworthy director. Because he is not one. It’s sad where we live in a world now where the latest graphics are apparently more important than substance. Bay will never get the latter. He will continue to produce pretty looking films with nothing else going for them.
And for the record, The Rock is one of the most overhyped and over recommended movies ever. I’m sorry but Cage+Connery+Harris should be the fucking trifecta, and in the end I felt it nothing more than a subpar action movie that would end up getting shown on TNT and TBS after they already played Seven and Silence of the Lambs for the weekend. Sure enough, thats where we are. Oh and comparing Brett Ratner to Michael Bay is like comparing Backstreet Boys and NSYNC. Same coin, different sides.
Bay has done nothing that will last more than next summer. He is the Sugar Ray of films. Hey isn’t he the one guy that did that one thing like 10 years ago?
February 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cgi_team_creates_realistic_oscar for Michael Bay.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Bay is a great visual filmmaker, his cinematography is amazing and the editing is quick but here’s the deal, his films extend their welcome. 2-2 1/2 hours and maybe its me, but
I’m the the club that believed “Transformers” was for 12 year old boys.
I don’t think Michael Bay has grasped how to tell a story. I haven’t seen the scripts that were written for his movies ,but I do see the action affecting the flow of the plot.
Explosions do not = a good movie
stories make great movies
February 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Leeroy: You obviously missed the whole point of this article. It wasn’t to convince anyone that Bay is a good director, it was to point out the incredibly ignorant misuse of the word “hackâ€. Michael Bay might be a bad director in your opinion, but he is not a “Hackâ€. Oh, and BTW, Funny Games sucked. :)
February 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
why does The Rock (film not Dwayne Johnson) get so much love? It’s such a bland cookie cutter action flick.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
People underestimate how difficult it is to make a decent action film. Shoot ‘Em Up tried and failed. Hulk failed. Its not as easy as it looks - its darn technically difficult and pacing is everything.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Peter: The former.
You asked. :)
February 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
His movies are no more than a product. you consume it, and throw it. But, anyway… 85% of american studio-movies are like that. And if you think it, 75% of directors are in some way damn Hacks. They primary goal is monetary success to do more movies. And that isn’t something to blame…. unless they do a product without a vision
Bay is no less than any other big blockbuster director. But, he has something else that put him in the frontline of his kind: “The Bay Way”. And his movies always are a spectacle you like it or not.
can anyone tell me there’s a “Rattner way”?
February 26th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I like Bay. He may not make movies with much depth, but for the type of movies he does make, he does excel.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I have to say Transformers is my least favorite of his films purely for its concrete fanbase of retards who actually consider it a good piece of film. It is most certainly not. Thus my hate for Michael Bay and the attempt on my part to, by any means necessary take the side against him.
Although that 4th definition looks pretty good in Michael Bay’s case, I’m willing to take your point to mind. You say you’re really tired of people calling him a hack, I get really sick of people going strait to the dictionary to prove their points. Since you are so fond of Meriam Webster, I’ve decided to copy a passage from there for you:
1. colloquial - characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing; informal.
I think most people would use the word “hack” colloquially as one who has little respect for their art and using it to appease the masses. ie - number 1 priority is making money. Also untalented. I think this is very characteristic of Michael Bay, Brett Radner, Roland Emerich, 2/6 Writers From Scary Movie, etc. All huge hacks and you have to admit all of their movies are pretty much the same in structure, style and dependancy on special effects/CG. I havent read all 40-something posts that have been posted for the same reason I cant imagine you do: they are all the same idiots with the same thing to say and unfortunately cant take any other points except theirs into consideration, thus haulting the intellectually fueled argument; so I wouldnt know if you made some other points that are not in your original post (of which there are few). So if you have any more I would love to hear them, becuase you havent convinced me sir. Hopefully, my points could shed some new light.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I wouldn’t say he’s a hack. He just does his own style (special effects/explosions) of movies and he does that well. Every director has their trademark and big budget summer flicks is Michael Bay’s territory.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I like how half of you act like you’ve even stepped foot on a film set. Some of the words coming out of your mouths baffle me.
Make a movie and get it sold before you go bashing.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Michael Bay makes hilariously awesome movies. If you hate his work, boycott it. Then, how about this: find something more important to bitch and moan about.
Watching transformers was like watching a Navy commercial fucking a car commercial for an hour and a half, and I honestly can’t imagine it any other way. I mean, yeah, it could have been faithful to the source material, but it had a Mountain Dew machine and an X-Box 360 killing people. Somehow the nerds still complain.
I’m gonna be shipping off to art school in the fall, with my top choice being the San Francisco Art Institute. A bastion of pretentious artfaggery if there ever was one. However, it overlooks Alcatraz, and no matter how fed up I get with humorless snobs, I can gaze off at The Rock and think of Michael Bay’s movies.
The guy’s movies suck, but he’s not a hack.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I’ve always felt that the world is big enough for all kinds of things, tastes and flavors. Certainly Mr. Bay’s films are not for everyone and I can understand that, but then DON”T GO SEE THEM! Go see something else, there are plenty of films that I don’t enjoy, but I don’t actively seek to destroy those that make them. I had this same argument the other day regarding Will Ferrell’s movies, yeah their the same all the time and yeah, they kinda suck in the grand scheme of FILM AS ART. But movies don’t always have to be about ART, sometimes they’re just comfort food. Something yummy, predictable and enjoyable that you forget about after you’ve eaten it. That’s what Bay’s films are to me, I enjoy the hell out of them when I’m watching them and then forget about them five minutes later. Personally, I think we have room for that sorta thing. But that’s me.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:26 am
I was confused when I read this article so I looked up “hack” in the dictionary and low and behold there was a picture of Michael Bay holding an Optimus Prime doll. Theres nothing creative about explosions in an action film.
Michael Bay defines hack. Quit nut-hugging.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 am
This article is funny, …somebody’s a blu-ray fan, do not insult their lord and savior.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:57 am
The following is excerpted from Peter Travers’ list of the 25 best DVDs of 2007:
25. TRANSFORMERS
Director Michael Bay may represent the death of personal cinema, but his film version of these Hasbro toys is the ultimate in soulless entertainment. It’s impossible to detect the touch of human hands, which some will take as a compliment.
HOT BONUS: Commentary by Bay that proves his arrogance knows no bounds.
KILLER SCENE: The battle between goodie robot Optimus Prime and the evil Megatron is a technical marvel that hits all the DVD bells and whistles.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“Anyone who takes a great story like Transformers and adds big breasted woman, robots pissing on persians and a black robot for no reason is a hack.”
I just wanted to point out, Megan Fox does NOT have huge breasts.
Amazing ass, check, huge breasts - unfortunately for mankind, no.
Other than that - Bay makes enjoyable movies. I like to watch things blow up and slow motion hero shots. I like to go into a movie for 120 minutes and be immersed in sound, light and unrealistic situations. I like to forget that life sucks for a few minutes and to me, Bay is a master at that. I guess everyone who hates his style of movies could just go see There will be Blood a thousand times and laud the amazing nothing that goes on for 2 hours (I’ll give DDL his due, he is always amazing but that movie was a piece of shit. I’ve read the book and I’ve seen the movie twice hoping I missed something and I didn’t. Poor use of sound and a drab unforgettable storyline.)
Transformer haters, are you kidding me? The movie was made to appeal to the transformers fan base - the entire damn storyline is good verses evil - so excuse me if GASP the climax of the storyline was the good leader fighting the evil leader. Give me a break. What the hell were you expecting, a lavish period piece with some intricate love triangle between Optimus Prime, some ugly chick and megatron? The story is what it is, and it was marketed as such and good for them for doing so.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Regrettably, I disagree with what everything the previous poster sayings. Transformers was a TERRIBLE movie. ^_^
I guess if your entirely lack brain function whatsoever, then as a movie might it apeal to you. The same story was told thousands of times!!! Just wiith different cast. Its a stereotypical good versus evil movie. Wheres originality? I am surprised it won awards!
I love United States and movie is so mean!!! Special agent forced to strip down underwear and would never happen for real. Very Fake!!! Not funny at all. ^_^
Mike Bay is gay. His movie skill is very not good. Glad he makes fake movie and not real depth movie. Could you imagine Mike Bay Forest Gump? Mike Bay Amrageddon?!?!
Some mens need to find other job!!! ^_^
February 27th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Sorry but he is the very definition of a Hack.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I like Micheal Bay’s movies (period) :)
I think /Film readers generally like to diss popular people in Hollywood!!!
First Jessica Alba and now Micheal Bay… oh but they like that “I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!” dude!!!!!
It’s like high school all over again “hate the popular” !!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
He’s a hack, M-othe_r fuc_ker_
February 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think the word Hack is thrown around way too
easily; it is like using the work fuck instead of
taking the time to use a more descriptive word.
In my opinion Michael Bay is good at
blowing shit up and giving the masses a good
visual action flick, but the man cannot tell a
cohesive story. I also have a strong dislike
for the movies he produces through his
production company and would like to ban his
company from remaking any more horror flicks.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Michael Bay has my respect ‘n’ all, I have nothing against ‘popular’ directors (although I’m surrounded by the pretentious crowd that hates them - MA Film & TV, you see).
Still, read your definition again: you’ll find that he can be rightfully called a hack. Whether that is a value judgement in itself is another thing - and I don’t like the word much either ;)
February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Chad wrote: “Regrettably, I disagree with what everything the previous poster sayings. Transformers was a TERRIBLE movie. ^_^
I guess if your entirely lack brain function whatsoever, then as a movie might it apeal to you. The same story was told thousands of times!!! Just wiith different cast. Its a stereotypical good versus evil movie. Wheres originality? I am surprised it won awards!”
That’s how I feel about JJ Abrams & cloverfield. Except for the part about the awardsit has won, since Abrams hasn’t one any for it.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
What about douche?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The guy just has a big mouth and he’s egotistical. It could be argued that he has a right to have a huge ego since he’s directed some huge blockbusters…it just puts him in a position to get a lot of criticism.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Just wait till Bay goes after a movie YOU LOVE! just wait…
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Amityville Horror
The Hithcher
Transformers
Friday the 13th
The Birds
Nightmare on elm Street
What next?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
ONE defense of Ratner: The Family Man
February 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I don’t know how all of you guys mindlessly call Bay a hack and don’t even consider what Peter wrote. Bay does not do this for the money - he loves making movies (and blowing shit up) more than even you or I. You may not LIKE what he makes or may not be fond of it, or may even call it formulaic crap, but what he does is uniquely a Michael Bay style and done because he loves doing it, not because he’s just being paid to make something over and over…
Think before you speak!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hey, Peter…
I’d certainly never argue that Bay is just trying to make a buck. His enthusiasm–albeit arguably misguided–has always been clear. He obviously put a lot of himself into Transformers (which, for what it’s worth… really disappointed me.)
But when I think of Michael Bay as a “hack,” I think specifically of the last definition that you listed: “To use frequently and indiscriminately, so as to render trite and commonplace.” You also omitted the common definition of: “a mediocre and disdained writer.”
What make his films so awful to me are the repeated uses of lame-brained ‘humor’, paper-thin plot developments, one-dimensional characterizations, contrived dialogue, and groan-inducing faux melodrama. His ‘formula’ and its elements are so distinctively recognizable as overused “Bay” devices that I think it’s fair to apply the first definition of “hack” that I cited, above. His movies are powerfully trite, if nothing else.
Further, while he’s most often credited as a director, he clearly has influence over his scripts… otherwise his movies wouldn’t all look so much alike. Hence the ‘hack’ interpretation of “a mediocre and disdained writer”.
Always a fun discussion… disappointed I didn’t have a chance to jump in sooner. Always enjoy a chance to rag on Bay. ;)
February 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I second the “douche” label.
This is absurd, by the way. The amount of pissy comments directed at Peter. Haha, then again… I don’t think he’s too worried about the number of hits this post is getting.
Again, I wanna mention that films and movies are different concepts. Arts vs. entertainment, get it? I mean, if you’re gonna split hairs on the definition of a hack in regards to Bay’s practices and ideas, I’m not gonna feel bad throwing that out there.
A good film is something that you go see because it’s something created with artistic intent that’ll make you think about the nuances of life or maybe some kind of cause.
A good movie is something you go see because it’s the middle of july, hot outside, and you wanna stare at giant robots, explosions, and Megan Fox. Okay, maybe a little too specific on that one, but you know what I mean.
I’m pretty sure “action film” is an oxymoron.
This is a stupid argument.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
A winner is you, Snark. And Jeff, you’re a very bright one indeed for thinking There Will Be Blood is anything but a good film.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Ratner may be horrible but Red Dragon and The Family Man are better than almost all of bay’s films except maybe the Rock
and Im sure nobody hates Michael Bay because he is popular
he acts like Stephen Spielberg acts, but Spielberg has made actual movies that are usally considered in Bay’s own words “Genius”
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Chad:
Michael Bat *did* direct Armageddon. If you’re going to knock a guy by comparing his work to other films, maybe you should, I dunno, make sure you know what his output is, hmm?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Michael Bay is definitely the Midas of Shit.