What makes Bay great? (err...awesome) ;)

[Bumblebee1983]

Simply put...this response:


Why not? How many people your age remember the film? Texas Chainsaw was banned when it was released. It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then? The people who saw the Texas I produced, never saw the original Texas. The movie was made for $7 million dollars and made $120 worldwide - making it one of the most profitable films of the entire year. When are you people out here going to realize this is a business? Studio's stay in business off films like these, so that they can make more films. Platinum Dunes is my side business. It is a business where I make a lot of money.

You want to talk about injustices in this world - then start talking about why the fuck we are in Iraq - that's an injustice. People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.

M

'nuff said. :)

[BeetleJuice]

You are wrong Bee, and so is Michael Bay. Bay's remarks are hurtful. To say that cinema is merely business, just a way of making big money, is insulting. As a movie goer is that all I am?!!! 10$ for a ticket, and more money for Bay. Nowhere does he mention why he wants to remake Rosemary's Baby, a classic at the time of its release. All he can do is talk money. Cinema is an art, and I'm sorry some of us feel that way, but there it is. Good cinema is priceless.
Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.
Btw, he's entitled to have a personal opinion about Iraq, but I have no idea why he mentioned it. And what the hell it has to do with cinema?!!!

[Bumblebee1983]

You are wrong Bee, and so is Michael Bay. Bay's remarks are hurtful. To say that cinema is merely business, just a way of making big money, is insulting. As a movie goer is that all I am?!!! 10$ for a ticket, and more money for Bay. Nowhere does he mention why he wants to remake Rosemary's Baby, a classic at the time of its release. All he can do is talk money. Cinema is an art, and I'm sorry some of us feel that way, but there it is. Good cinema is priceless.
Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.
Btw, he's entitled to have a personal opinion about Iraq, but I have no idea why he mentioned it. And what the hell it has to do with cinema?!!!

I mainly (and should have done this, but umm...I was in a hurry, sowwy!) was regarding this part of his post:


People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.

[LadiesMan217]

I'm with Beetlejuice on this one. As a fan of his this is not the responce I wanted to see from Michael.

[Bumblebee1983]

I'm with Beetlejuice on this one. As a fan of his this is not the responce I wanted to see from Michael.

I was mainly speaking about the latter part of his response...not generally the entire thing.

People get their panties in a wad over trivial things. I agree with him on that bit.

[drdr47]

I'm also with Beetlejuice on this one.

[redqueenar]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said. If you don't think this is a business, then lucky you for obviously NEVER having tried to operate in it.

Regardless of *anyone's* specific opinion of the situation in Iraq, I think he is right to point out that the issue of the war is FAR more important to us than crying over a film remake that no one is going to force you to go see. OVER FOUR THOUSAND of our men and women have died over there. Remaking Rosemary's Baby isn't going to KILL anybody. If you don't like it, then don't see it.

[kevski]

It's his business. Where he can make money.

Let's face it, PD is not a company where he wants to make something artistic and meaningful. The fact that he's never directed his own film under PD pretty much proves that.

He has his own films to create his own art. He leaves the art to the directors and actual film makers of the PD films.

[Bay_Fan_Gibson]

You are wrong Bee, and so is Michael Bay. Bay's remarks are hurtful. To say that cinema is merely business, just a way of making big money, is insulting. As a movie goer is that all I am?!!! 10$ for a ticket, and more money for Bay. Nowhere does he mention why he wants to remake Rosemary's Baby, a classic at the time of its release. All he can do is talk money. Cinema is an art, and I'm sorry some of us feel that way, but there it is. Good cinema is priceless.
Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.
Btw, he's entitled to have a personal opinion about Iraq, but I have no idea why he mentioned it. And what the hell it has to do with cinema?!!!


Business is business. Moviemaking is business.

Michael Bay is right. He's talking like a professor...he's just giving it to you straight.

Mr. Bay is fortunate to be in a position where he seems to enjoy his job and what he does to make money. But it's about making money.

It's all about keeping up your personal value and ensuring that you remain viable. Big budget movies have investors that expect a return for their participation. The actors/workers answer to Mr. Bay, he answers to somebody, and that person answers to somebody else. All these people who need paychecks....there is a responsibility to keep the properties viable.

To think otherwise is living in lala land.

[Bumblebee1983]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said. If you don't think this is a business, then lucky you for obviously NEVER having tried to operate in it.

Regardless of *anyone's* specific opinion of the situation in Iraq, I think he is right to point out that the issue of the war is FAR more important to us than crying over a film remake that no one is going to force you to go see. OVER FOUR THOUSAND of our men and women have died over there. Remaking Rosemary's Baby isn't going to KILL anybody. If you don't like it, then don't see it.


Business is business. Moviemaking is business.

Michael Bay is right. He's talking like a professor...he's just giving it to you straight.

Mr. Bay is fortunate to be in a position where he seems to enjoy his job and what he does to make money. But it's about making money.

It's all about keeping up your personal value and ensuring that you remain viable. Big budget movies have investors that expect a return for their participation. The actors/workers answer to Mr. Bay, he answers to somebody, and that person answers to somebody else. All these people who need paychecks....there is a responsibility to keep the properties viable.

To think otherwise is living in lala land.

Well said both of ya.

Thanks for backing me up, I'm a little distracted and couldn't put it into those words quite as you could. :o

[LadiesMan217]

It's great that Michael responds to certain issues on these boards but he should really think about what he's saying. It will probably be all over the fuckin' internet tomorrow that Michael admits all the Platinum Dunes bullcrap is all about earning more cash for him, which we all suspected, but anyway. As I said, as a big fan of him that's been defending him for many years it's pretty disappointing to see him basically saying "Oh, so what, I make a lot of money producing these remakes of those crappy originals no one remembers" which also is purely wrong; TCM, Amityville, The Hitcher, The Birds, Friday The 13th, Rosemary's Baby are all horror cult movies that will probably stand the test of time better than the Platinum Dunes-remakes. Who does they make the remakes for anyway? The clueless 11-year olds that pretty much think anything with a little gore in it is "teh cool"? I actually think at least 50% of the audience of the TCM-remake were the big horror fans who saw the original and not the clueless 11-year olds.

I just think that Michael should know that, for instance, the majority of the people that are going to see the Friday The 13th-remake, are probably fanboys who have been watching these movies for years, and not the 11-year old "Tha best movie all time is Prom Night (08 version), worst one is Psycho man so old, black and white, no blood, just talk talk talk, man talk boring are" type of people.

Anyway, I just hope that Michael don't see the movies he directs the same way.

[Bay_Fan_Gibson]

It's great that Michael responds to certain issues on these boards but he should really think about what he's saying. It will probably be all over the fuckin' internet tomorrow that Michael admits all the Platinum Dunes bullcrap is all about earning more cash for him, which we all suspected, but anyway.

To me that's like accusing a pro sports star of signing with teams to go after the big bucks...as if there's something wrong with that.
The sports star is just leveraging his assets to maximize his income, it's what we all try to do.
Again, Bay's just giving it to you straight, unlike many others who would sugarcoat BS slop about how it's not for the money.



Who does they make the remakes for anyway? The clueless 11-year olds that pretty much think anything with a little gore in it is "teh cool"? I actually think at least 50% of the audience of the TCM-remake were the big horror fans who saw the original and not the clueless 11-year olds.

When you ask who these remakes are for specifically, you pretty much have your answer. The fact that, as Bay says, Chainsaw was one of the most profitable films of the year means that it hit its target audience right on the spot. It was successful and delivered.

We don't have the analysis on where the film was targeted specifically, but obviously research was conducted and the film exceeded its goal.



Anyway, I just hope that Michael don't see the movies he directs the same way.


Why not? If Bay directs Transformers 3, and at that point his researchers discover an increasing trend towards a changing appeal age group (lets say, 20 year olds), then why not strategically target and gear the movie in that direction? It's smart business. It doesn't mean that other qualities, like his art in direction, the quality of the storytelling, and the acting go down the tubes. They are still there...it's just an increased awareness to maximize revenue potential.

[CJP]

I'm sorry, as a vet, and one who has been butt-fucked by Stop-Loss
and back in Iraq, I had to post this in a thread where people could reply.

Michael Bay in reply to a question about remaking Rosemary's Baby:

Why not? How many people your age remember the film? Texas Chainsaw was banned when it was released. It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then? The people who saw the Texas I produced, never saw the original Texas. The movie was made for $7 million dollars and made $120 worldwide - making it one of the most profitable films of the entire year. When are you people out here going to realize this is a business? Studio's stay in business off films like these, so that they can make more films. Platinum Dunes is my side business. It is a business where I make a lot of money.

You want to talk about injustices in this world - then start talking about why the fuck we are in Iraq - that's an injustice. People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.

M


You know that last part got me going since I am all about being against this war. Thanks for the honesty in that reply. You freakin' rock! Hope you check out my deployment videos one day.

Casey

[Bumblebee1983]

I'm sorry, as a vet, and one who has been butt-fucked by Stop-Loss
and back in Iraq, I had to post this in a thread where people could reply.

Michael Bay in reply to a question about remaking Rosemary's Baby:

Why not? How many people your age remember the film? Texas Chainsaw was banned when it was released. It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then? The people who saw the Texas I produced, never saw the original Texas. The movie was made for $7 million dollars and made $120 worldwide - making it one of the most profitable films of the entire year. When are you people out here going to realize this is a business? Studio's stay in business off films like these, so that they can make more films. Platinum Dunes is my side business. It is a business where I make a lot of money.

You want to talk about injustices in this world - then start talking about why the fuck we are in Iraq - that's an injustice. People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.

M


You know that last part got me going since I am all about being against this war. Thanks for the honesty in that reply. You freakin' rock! Hope you check out my deployment videos one day.

Casey

Errr...blonde moment, move along. I get it now! *duh*

*slap forehead*

[xAgonyxScenex]

I keep saying the same thing to people who bitch that there is no originality in Hollywood. It's a business...end of story. If people want originality they need to stop seeing the cookie cutter shit, and start watching the more experimental shit. Simple as that. Studios go where the money is. They have stock holders to please, and employees to pay. Cant blame them.

[xAgonyxScenex]

You are wrong Bee, and so is Michael Bay. Bay's remarks are hurtful. To say that cinema is merely business, just a way of making big money, is insulting. As a movie goer is that all I am?!!! 10$ for a ticket, and more money for Bay. Nowhere does he mention why he wants to remake Rosemary's Baby, a classic at the time of its release. All he can do is talk money. Cinema is an art, and I'm sorry some of us feel that way, but there it is. Good cinema is priceless.
Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.
Btw, he's entitled to have a personal opinion about Iraq, but I have no idea why he mentioned it. And what the hell it has to do with cinema?!!!

hell ya you are..and the sooner you realize that the better. It's nice to want things (i.e cinema to be a sacred thing for you). You have no idea how business works.

[LadiesMan217]

I hear ya. But to me, it's disappointing to see him justify doing those remakes by "They make money, what can you do?" (Didn't TCM: The Beginning underperform and The Hitcher flat out bomb anyway?) and "Who remembers the originals?". Ah, I just dislike Platinum Dunes. I hate that Michael Bay is involved with that, honestly. I didn't have a problem with them until I started to question "WTF?! Are they going to remake every horror movie out there or what?". I don't really understand how anybody, horror fan or not, can't have a problem with all the fuckin' remakes lately. It's embarrasing. I haven't seen that many of them (why bother?) but from what I've heard remakes like The Fog, Black Christmas or Prom Night are Uwe Boll-type crap films. I saw Halloween and even that was pure shit.

And of course I understand that Bay can't make a movie for 200 million dollar and be like "Fuck the box-office. I've made a good film here, don't care if it only makes 10 million" but to make a quality flick always needs to be the main priority. I don't want him to say "I make Transformers 2 mainly because it grossed 700 million dollars worldwide. After this one I'll make something that I actually want to make". The reason for Pearl Harbor gettin' so fucked up was, let's face it, because they started to look at it like a product. They wrote in a fuckin' love story there to attack both sides of the target audience so to speak and movie suffered immensily because of it. I don't know if that was Bruckheimer or Bay's fault, because maybe Disney said "Movie about Pearl Harbor sounds great but we can't make a movie like that for 200 million dollars if it only will speak to war film buffs so let's get a fuckin' love triangle in there, two good-looking model-like actors for the girls, a cute girl for the guys, a little bit of love, a little of explosions, and everyone shall be pleased".

[Bumblebee1983]

hell ya you are..and the sooner you realize that the better. It's nice to want things (i.e cinema to be a sacred thing for you). You have no idea how business works.

*snicker*

We're pawns in a big Hollywood blockbuster war (that's never ending!)! *bwahaha!*

But if it weren't for us, people like Bay wouldn't be around, ya know? And we'd have no entertainment to talk about to bring people of certain interests together.

Ya know?

[uraydo]

as an artist, I agree with Michael. If your art can't sale, why make it? this is especially true for story telling artist such as film.

[michaelbay]

Now you are twisting my words. This is the danger with the internet - words become fodder for other stuff off subject. Very simply I'm talking about my "side business". That is my horror genre division where I produce - and nothing else. I'm not talking about my movies I direct. I'm talking about re making Texas Chainsaw. I'm very clear in the last post that I was talking about Texas, the original movie, and was it so "sacred" that it should of never been remake?? Stay on point - don't apply these words to other movies.
M

[michaelbay]

Hitcher was our first bomb. We went three for three, we spent $43 million in production and they went on to make $300 million worldwide in ticket sales not including video. Texas 2 was profitable so you are wrong on that fact.

M

[Bumblebee1983]

Now you are twisting my words. This is the danger with the internet - words become fodder for other stuff off subject. Very simply I'm talking about my "side business". That is my horror genre division where I produce - and nothing else. I'm not talking about my movies I direct. I'm talking about re making Texas Chainsaw. I'm very clear in the last post that I was talking about Texas, the original movie, and was it so "sacred" that it should of never been remake?? Stay on point - don't apply these words to other movies.
M

I didn't do it!

*hides*

On a serious note....I haven't seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, even though I've heard it's great and all, but to be honest, I have no problem with remakes. It just gives it a...flavor (I guess that's the word I'm looking for) of the current generation.

Take the Star Wars movies for example. When Lucas re-released the originals, he added some bits to it and remastered it. Yeah, okay, the real fanboys were very upset at that little fact. But I enjoyed it because it made me feel like I was a part of that movie history. Then, the prequels came out. Fanboys were upset about that, but that's my version of Star Wars. My dad was happy to see Star Wars-the original trilogy on the big screen again and able to share it with me and my little brother. Now...the same can be said for the prequels.

Did that make sense? I'm dead tired from a hell of a day. :o

AGH! After thinking about this on the road, (yes, I do a lot of thinking on my commute), I don't necessarily have a problem with remakes as they can add a bit of newer technology to them...but Short Circuit? Why remake that? But, perhaps since it has the original writers, maybe there won't be a problem. *shrug*

[uraydo]

I keep saying the same thing to people who bitch that there is no originality in Hollywood. It's a business...end of story. If people want originality they need to stop seeing the cookie cutter shit, and start watching the more experimental shit. Simple as that. Studios go where the money is. They have stock holders to please, and employees to pay. Cant blame them.

" we're lowering the standard in a process selective
the formula is too thin
but it takes more than one person
so everyone jump on
i'll miss you when you're just like them
imitate and water down
selection breathes on its own
before the crash i'll write it out:
selection breathes on its own
make them open the request line and let selection kill the old
take back the radio...[ah... I mean cinema]"

~Jimmy Eat World~


my word in the matter... don't buy shit if you don't watch shit... really, what Agony said.

[hautbasclair]

Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.


Well then, that would make him the best at what he's doing.

[chubaka]

BeetleJuice, you are wrong. Moviemaking - is business. I talking about mainstream movies, not for some movie festivals or social stuff.

Movie - is a product. We pay for our good/bad emotions.

I totally agree with Michael Bay.

[nelson]

To say that cinema is merely business, just a way of making big money, is insulting.

He didn't say it applies to ALL cinema. But mainstream Hollywood is called show business for a reason. To not acknowledge would be naive.


Nowhere does he mention why he wants to remake Rosemary's Baby, a classic at the time of its release. All he can do is talk money. Cinema is an art, and I'm sorry some of us feel that way, but there it is. Good cinema is priceless.

To certain degree, it's business. I doubted Roman Polanski would've done the original one for free. I doubted Bay is speaking of cinema from the angle which you're referring to.


Bay is talking about exploitation, making money from the largest amount of people possible. Honestly, if that's his game, then he's no better than Hugh Hefner.

There's a place and a time for everything. There's a place for art house and then there's a place for entertainment cinema. Comparing Playboy to movies is ridiculous.


Btw, he's entitled to have a personal opinion about Iraq, but I have no idea why he mentioned it. And what the hell it has to do with cinema?!!!

That's there more important things to worry about than a movie remake?

[BeetleJuice]

First off, I'm a big Michael Bay fan. Let's get this straight, I loved Transformers for what it was, a massive action packed thrilling ride, with great humor too. Armageddon was also greatly entertaining. The visuals, the music, all Michael Bay films are highly enjoyable. I love them all.
And again, I'm not trolling or looking for attention from any of you guys. And I don't expect to be banned for daring to criticise Michael Bay. I don't want to insult anyone.
But I stand by my first post. I didn't twist his words, Bay wrote them. The danger of the Internet is not that guys like me twist words, the danger is that when you write something, a lot of people can read it.

Why not? How many people your age remember the film?

Is this a joke?!! He presumes to know the original posters age. I guess he thinks he's young, and young people don't watch old cult movies. What was I thinking?!! or maybe he thought he was an old guy with amnesia... also very insulting.

The original poster was talking about Rosemary's Baby, Bay deflected this and diverted to Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then?

Of course... again I'm sorry. The evil film critics decided Texas Chainsaw Massacre was going to be a classic. We all know most people can't decide for themselves... Have you ever heard of word of mouth? It's what you get when one guy sees a cool film, and then tells another to go see it, and so on... until after some time, you have a cult classic movie.

The people who saw the Texas I produced, never saw the original Texas

Yup... I don't know what to say, that is a big assumption. Maybe cinema was born with Bay, you know, how about... BB(before Bay), and AB(after Bay)... so I admit I saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre BB, but we all know movies weren't good back then, so all hail Texas AB!!!

When are you people out here going to realize this is a business?

I don't understand... When I buy my ticket, I hand over 10$, the guy gives me a little paper cut out in return... I guessed the money was going somewhere, I couldn't quite figure out until now... jeez... Thanks Mr Bay! You just taught me something! Respect.

Platinum Dunes is my side business. It is a business where I make a lot of money

I don't know what others think of this, but I see a film making huge amounts of money, I like to believe the filmmakers will reinvest that cash into other movies, and we will continue being entertained by more movies, and everyone is happy. Now maybe it isn't what Mr Bay meant, but that remark sounded like it was coming from a greedy, money obsessed person. It was unpleasant.

You want to talk about injustices in this world - then start talking about why the fuck we are in Iraq - that's an injustice. People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.

Yes, something we all agree on, all the horrors of this world are far more important than any film, or entertainment whatsoever. But that doesn't mean you can't care about the movies you love. Films have a sentimental value for some people. It's insulting to disregard that. I also don't think Michael Bay would find it funny if in 30 years time some guy came along and remade Transformers, Armageddon or Bad Boys.

Once more, that was a personal take on Bay's post, some people aren't offended by his remarks, that's OK. But don't get upset or aggrieved when others take exception to his words. I simply posted to show I didn't agree, and I felt it necessary. Peace out.

[redqueenar]

Well, LadiesMan217 was being addressed, or so I thought, and he is twenty years old. It's stated clearly in his user profile. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released in 1974 when neither he, nor I at 27, were a so much as a glimmer in our mamma's eye. The "people" he refers to are us, the teenagers for whom he *always* claimed to make his films. (The Rock made it a sweet sixteen for me, thanks)

And I think the reason he "switched" from Rosemary's Baby to TCM was to point out the production company's previous record of success with horror remakes. It wasn't devious, he was just pointing the conversation toward hard evidence.

And they already did remake Armageddon! It was called The Core or something... :D

[BeetleJuice]

Comparing Playboy to movies is ridiculous.


No it isn't.
Playboy: worthless shit that sells due to it's huge demand and popularity, regardless of it's quality. It appeals to the animalistic side of men. Very large distribution that floods the market and kills of competition.

Successful bad movies: Popular stories, sometimes remakes, coupled with aggressive marketing, and again huge distribution. Makes huge amounts of money in first weekend. Suffers heavy collapse on the second weekend. Unfortunately high DVD sales due again to lack of competition and huge marketing.

Morality? Shit sells, if you wrap it in pretty paper with a cute ribbon:p

[redqueenar]

No it isn't.
Playboy: worthless shit that sells due to it's huge demand and popularity, regardless of it's quality. It appeals to the animistic side of men. Very large distribution that floods the market and kills of competition.

Now who's making assumptions?? Dude! Wrong! Click here and educate yourself. (http://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Interviews-Movers-Shakers/dp/1595820442/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208924215&sr=8-2) Playboy has a silly public face at times, but don't call it a rag until you've read it.

And this one (http://www.amazon.com/New-Bedside-Playboy-Amusement-Entertainment/dp/1586421190/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3), too!

[BeetleJuice]

Well, LadiesMan217 was being addressed, or so I thought, and he is twenty years old. It's stated clearly in his user profile. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released in 1974 when neither he, nor I at 27, were a so much as a glimmer in our mamma's eye. The "people" he refers to are us, the teenagers for whom he *always* claimed to make his films. (The Rock made it a sweet sixteen for me, thanks)

And I think the reason he "switched" from Rosemary's Baby to TCM was to point out the production company's previous record of success with horror remakes. It wasn't devious, he was just pointing the conversation toward hard evidence.

And they already did remake Armageddon! It was called The Core or something... :D

Not to be argumentative, but he first replied analytical cinema on the ask Michael Bay section. It was funny he guessed that persons age.
He was referring to young movie goers, and yes we haven't all seen the old films. His productions obviously have to be accessible to a wider audience.
Only I don't think Rosemary's Baby and Texas Chainsaw are comparable.

Armageddon was actually remade before it was even released... Deep Impact, they stole story ideas from Bay's film!!!

[redqueenar]

Not to be argumentative, but he first replied analytical cinema on the ask Michael Bay section.

Oh, you're right about that. Mea culpa.

[Beej]

Morality? Shit sells, if you wrap it in pretty paper with a cute ribbon:p

True. There is a market for Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and Ho-Hos. Oh, and shit rises to the top, so, what was the point, again?

Beetle, I don't disagree with you very often...okay, to date nothing comes to mind, but you are going to lose that arguement on men, animalissszm, and Playboy, and like hey, what about Playgirl? Is that still around? Recalling the time Bob Chandler (may he RIP), was the centerfold. Okay, probably before your time, he was wide reciever w/Bills, then Raiders where he got a Superbowl ring (back then they used stickum), etc., anyway, the center folded and stapled so you didn't see nuttin (was the early 80s). Playboy and remakes are just not even apples and oranges. Although if Freddy were to enter male teens dreaming of Playmates (naw, too easy). Okay, digressing rapidly...

Why is this a conversation? Oh, yeah remakes... half of us don't even know what is being missed in the last 15 years let alone hold it to some high ideal... case in point, I was looking up movies to rent and I've been watching those starring Richard Widmark and/or Charlton Heston (last weekend was Ben-Hur), and in between "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "Airport 1975" was "Armegeddon" -- "I was like, why is that there, he wasn't in that." But he was, he was the narrator (still not recalling that). I was shocked. R-Type and RedQueen were like, yeah, dumbass, you missed it (actually they were very kind about my mental failure). So, even me, big fan of CH, and always feeling like I could pick up on the voices -- big miss. But it'll get me to watch it again just to catch that performance.

Now let's talk reality programming and how I'm not smarter than a 5th grader (I'm not, I keep losing); no wait, how about what the heck is going on with all of this money (are that at a billion each now?) in spending on the U.S. political campaigns? Or we could stay on topic... Is Bay great, er awesome? I've no idea about his awesomeness per se, but I like his work, so, Bee, opening up a bee, er hornet's nest, what else you got? I'm game.

Edit: It is so wierd seeing Jamie Lee Curtis on the cover of the AARP magazine... time flies.

[redqueenar]

True. There is a market for Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and Ho-Hos. Oh, and shit rises to the top, so, what was the point, again?

Beetle, I don't disagree with you very often...okay, to date nothing comes to mind, but you are going to lose that arguement on men, animalissszm, and Playboy, and like hey, what about Playgirl? Is that still around? Recalling the time Bob Chandler (may he RIP), was the centerfold. Okay, probably before your time, he was wide reciever w/Bills, then Raiders where he got a Superbowl ring (back then they used stickum), etc., anyway, the center folded and stapled so you didn't see nuttin (was the early 80s). Playboy and remakes are just not even apples and oranges. Although if Freddy were to enter male teens dreaming of Playmates (naw, too easy). Okay, digressing rapidly...

Why is this a conversation? Oh, yeah remakes... half of us don't even know what is being missed in the last 15 years let alone hold it to some high ideal... case in point, I was looking up movies to rent and I've been watching those starring Richard Widmark and/or Charlton Heston (last weekend was Ben-Hur), and in between "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "Airport 1975" was "Armegeddon" -- "I was like, why is that there, he wasn't in that." But he was, he was the narrator (still not recalling that). I was shocked. R-Type and RedQueen were like, yeah, dumbass, you missed it (actually they were very kind about my mental failure). So, even me, big fan of CH, and always feeling like I could pick up on the voices -- big miss. But it'll get me to watch it again just to catch that performance.

Now let's talk reality programming and how I'm not smarter than a 5th grader (I'm not, I keep losing); no wait, how about what the heck is going on with all of this money (are that at a billion each now?) in spending on the U.S. political campaigns? Or we could stay on topic... Is Bay great, er awesome? I've no idea about his awesomeness per se, but I like his work, so, Bee, opening up a bee, er hornet's nest, what else you got? I'm game.

Edit: It is so wierd seeing Jamie Lee Curtis on the cover of the AARP magazine... time flies.

I would never, ever call you a dumbass, Beej! :o And I must reiterate my earlier statement about Playboy's intelligence. Don't confuse Hefner with Larry Flynt, now THAT'S apples and oranges...

[LadiesMan217]

It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then?

Of course... again I'm sorry. The evil film critics decided Texas Chainsaw Massacre was going to be a classic. We all know most people can't decide for themselves... Have you ever heard of word of mouth? It's what you get when one guy sees a cool film, and then tells another to go see it, and so on... until after some time, you have a cult classic movie.

That was really the case. Although, if I remember correcly the original TCM was actually the highest-grossing independent movie of all time up to that point. The makers never got to see any money though because the movie was basically distributed by the mafia. I do think Michael knows about word of mouth btw - a big reason his movies are making the business they're doing, moreso than Leonard Maltin giving it a positive review. Pretty strange hearing Michael saying "Read the reviews!" ;) Isn't it funny though how critics decades ago trashed the fuck out of movies that we now consider to be some of the greatest of all time. Directors like Stanley Kubrick usually got shit reviews; someone said 2001 was the biggest amateur movie ever made, Barry Lyndon was boring and flat as hell and The Shining just a piss-poor adaptation of King's book. Psycho got terrible reviews but mainly for the reason that the critics actually had to pay to see the flick because there were no press screenings ;)

And no, I didn't make the original post, that was posted in the Ask MB-section.

[redqueenar]

And no, I didn't make the original post, that was posted in the Ask MB-section.

Sorry again.

Personally, I long for the day when people realize that Armageddon is a John Ford calvary Western... IN SPACE! Time will tell, it always does.

[sora]

From what I've read, he (Bay) made the remark as the producer.
There's no problem with making profits. It's quite sound attitude toward producing.

Besides, Michael Bay probably knows better than anyone the best and shortest way to make money from movie making. It's simple. "to entertain audience".
So I'd say. Don't be up tight. :)


BTW Bee, You may want to wrap B (bold) or U (underline) tag around a passage you'd like to refer from the next time. Then nobody might misunderstand your intention. ;)



Now you are twisting my words. This is the danger with the internet - words become fodder for other stuff off subject. Very simply I'm talking about my "side business". That is my horror genre division where I produce - and nothing else. I'm not talking about my movies I direct. I'm talking about re making Texas Chainsaw. I'm very clear in the last post that I was talking about Texas, the original movie, and was it so "sacred" that it should of never been remake?? Stay on point - don't apply these words to other movies.
M
Sometimes it annoys me too. People easily say "he/she said this" and "maybe he/she thinks that way" out of context.

[redqueenar]

From what I've read, he (Bay) made the remark as the producer.
There's no problem with making profits. It's quite sound attitude toward producing.

Besides, Michael Bay probably knows better than anyone the best and shortest way to make money from movie making. It's simple. "to entertain audience".
So I'd say. Don't be up tight. :)

BTW Bee, You may want to wrap B (bold) or U (underline) tag around a passage you'd like to refer from the next time. Then nobody might misunderstand your intention. ;)

Sometimes it annoys me too. People easily say "he/she said this" and "maybe he/she thinks that way" out of context.

Prom Night kicked ass on its opening weekend. Prom Night!!! Horror films (that aren't torture porn!!) are great date movies!

I've always been impressed by the way Bay wears all the hats he does. Just reading through the SEC filing for Digital Domain is killing precious brain cells. My finance executive mother is so embarrassed by my ignorance. :rolleyes:

[sora]

Prom Night kicked ass on its opening weekend. Prom Night!!! Horror films (that aren't torture porn!!) are great date movies!

I've always been impressed by the way Bay wears all the hats he does. Just reading through the SEC filing for Digital Domain is killing precious brain cells. My finance executive mother is so embarrassed by my ignorance. :rolleyes:
And optimistically speaking, sometimes creating artistic stuff and making it profitable can go together. It makes both sides happy. :)

[hautbasclair]

Morality? Shit sells, if you wrap it in pretty paper with a cute ribbon:p

Really? Is that your point of view on Marketing?

I like to think that we always get the same pretty paper with a cute ribbon... after a while, you should be able to recognize what you get before you actually buy it.

After that, it's just a matter of opinion of what is inside.

[Smokescreen_5]

Personally.. I couldn't give a rats ass about a damn horror flick.. I think their all dumb in the first place..

Second.. I don't worry about Iraq.. whatever.. people signed up to be in the military.. the military owns them, they can do with them whatever the hell they want.. end of story.. its in the contract.. look at the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.. Oh.. and its just over 3000 dead.. not 4000.. but thats only the Americans.. that doesn't count the 30,000 or so Iraqi people that have been killed by their own terrorists.. but Americans are too damn caught up on the numbers of Americans killed and not really caring about the fact that before we got there, that the Iraqi people were being killed at a rate of about 10,000 people a year.. and since our forces have been there, its dropped to about 5,000 a year or less by now. but.. thats trivial information and who really gives a fuck about the Iraqi's.. right? whatever...

As far as this thread goes.. Bay is THE PRODUCER, he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS. They are HIS FILMS. If you don't want to see HIS REMAKES, then don't watch them.. nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay and watch them.. are they? No? Then shut up already.. damn.. this thread is retarded.. on to better things..

[olwenda]

Makes you wonder why Spielberg or Scorcese make movies.

I think what makes michael great is -the explosion,the helicopters the hot girls and the cars and a #1 box office,
comes to mind this might be only kind of films we might see from him:(.

I doubt to see a michael do/invest a picture like
"Michael clayton/There will be blood/No country for men"

filmmaking at it`s best

Mise-en-scene
Poetic Realism
Noir & Neonoir
New German Cinema
Italian Neorealism
French New Wave
Documentary
Cult


because this films won`t sell but would rather invest on a remake make money of it and not originallity "disap:(inting".

Comes back to what Sean Connery said WAY back might have been true.

[kevski]

Lol

[Bay_Fan_Gibson]

First off, I'm a big Michael Bay fan. Let's get this straight, I loved Transformers for what it was, a massive action packed thrilling ride, with great humor too. Armageddon was also greatly entertaining. The visuals, the music, all Michael Bay films are highly enjoyable. I love them all.
And again, I'm not trolling or looking for attention from any of you guys. And I don't expect to be banned for daring to criticise Michael Bay. I don't want to insult anyone.
But I stand by my first post. I didn't twist his words, Bay wrote them. The danger of the Internet is not that guys like me twist words, the danger is that when you write something, a lot of people can read it.

Why not? How many people your age remember the film?

Is this a joke?!! He presumes to know the original posters age. I guess he thinks he's young, and young people don't watch old cult movies. What was I thinking?!! or maybe he thought he was an old guy with amnesia... also very insulting.

Insulting? Overdramatic words, don't you think?
I think that Michael Bay just has a good sense of his audience and fanbase.
His movies like The Rock kick ass to anyone on the planet, but I doubt there are many oldies consistently browsing this forum. Maybe I am wrong.

I'm sure that there are youngsters who are into old cult movies. But like Michael Bay said above... "how many"....its niche audiences. The grand majority of youth, and not just youth but college kids and up as well, have never seen the original, nor do they care to much to. If anything, a new film brings new awareness to the original.





The original poster was talking about Rosemary's Baby, Bay deflected this and diverted to Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

It only became a "classic" in revisionist critics history. Why don't you read the reviews from back then?

Of course... again I'm sorry. The evil film critics decided Texas Chainsaw Massacre was going to be a classic. We all know most people can't decide for themselves... Have you ever heard of word of mouth? It's what you get when one guy sees a cool film, and then tells another to go see it, and so on... until after some time, you have a cult classic movie.


One mans whatever is another man's gold...or however it goes.

You could argue the same thing for Transformers. Look at all those passionate Transfans over the last few decades who are in love with the 1986 Transformers movie. Couldn't that qualify as a cult favorite status?

Bay remade these Transformers.
Yet you said above you "loved" Bay's remake. Contradiction?
So Bay's allowed to remake Transformers and you love it, yet when his company remakes a cult horror movie, you seem to criticize?

Transformers = allowed, Horror movies = not allowed?

Who wrote that dumb rulebook?




The people who saw the Texas I produced, never saw the original Texas

Yup... I don't know what to say, that is a big assumption. Maybe cinema was born with Bay, you know, how about... BB(before Bay), and AB(after Bay)... so I admit I saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre BB, but we all know movies weren't good back then, so all hail Texas AB!!!


The ironic thing here is that you assume that Bay assumed.
What if he had staff who researched this? What if he has documents in front of him showing the stats? Again, irony.



When are you people out here going to realize this is a business?

I don't understand... When I buy my ticket, I hand over 10$, the guy gives me a little paper cut out in return... I guessed the money was going somewhere, I couldn't quite figure out until now... jeez... Thanks Mr Bay! You just taught me something! Respect.

Do you think Bay will appreciate such apparent sarcasm?
The truth is that people do forget that its a business. They think the movies they love belong to them because they are just that big of fans.



Platinum Dunes is my side business. It is a business where I make a lot of money

I don't know what others think of this, but I see a film making huge amounts of money, I like to believe the filmmakers will reinvest that cash into other movies, and we will continue being entertained by more movies, and everyone is happy. Now maybe it isn't what Mr Bay meant, but that remark sounded like it was coming from a greedy, money obsessed person. It was unpleasant.

Why is it unpleasant? Because someone said he makes a lot of money from a revenue stream?

It's clear why each of us go to work each day. It's not because we just love those office buildings so much...."oooohhhh! These brick wallllss!!!!"......it's to collect for our work. Again, Michael Bay is just giving it to us straight and honest.

What do you want him to say?



..

[benizzle]

Hitcher was our first bomb. We went three for three, we spent $43 million in production and they went on to make $300 million worldwide in ticket sales not including video. Texas 2 was profitable so you are wrong on that fact.

M

I'm sorry Mr Bay for questioning what you said....but i can hardly believe that The Hitcher made 300$ million in ticket sales! Or did I missunderstand what you wanted to say?! (I'm from Switzerland so my english isn't perfect)
I know it's not a veeeery credible source of information, but here it says only 23$ million!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hitcher07.htm

Thanks and cheers

[Smokescreen_5]

Hitcher was our first bomb. We went three for three, we spent $43 million in production and they went on to make $300 million worldwide in ticket sales not including video. Texas 2 was profitable so you are wrong on that fact.

M

When you say ticket sales, do you mean to date.. as of April 25, 2008? Or do you mean just at the box office during the opening few months. I was looking at yahoo movies and it claims its only $16.4 million at the box office..

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809710034/info

I never even heard of this movie so I don't know much about it.

[Bay_Fan_Gibson]

What about Midnight Meat Train?
I can't believe you let that one slip away, Mr. Bay. :p

[CJP]

Bottom Line:
Movie making is a BUSINESS.
This concept is lost on way too many wanna directors / producers.
That is why they fail.

[xAgonyxScenex]

Really? Is that your point of view on Marketing?

I like to think that we always get the same pretty paper with a cute ribbon... after a while, you should be able to recognize what you get before you actually buy it.


After that, it's just a matter of opinion of what is inside.

you should...but you have to remember, most of the American public...is retarded.

[Smokescreen_5]

you should...but you have to remember, most of the American public...is retarded.


Now now... don't be so hard on yourself.... lol.. I kid :p

[Trailbreaker]

I totally agree with Mike, it's all about making a buck. That's how the film industry works, and thats how America works. We have a capitalist economic system and the whole point of this system is to...MAKE MONEY! Movies are for pure entertainment so I'm not gonna get all pissy if they remake stuff. If the remake sucked then we will wait for a better one in the future, or forget the remake and go with the original.

And the war in Iraq, agree with him on that too. It's a big clusterf*ck.

[Swift]

I totally agree with Mike, it's all about making a buck. That's how the film industry works, and thats how America works. We have a capitalist economic system and the whole point of this system is to...MAKE MONEY! Movies are for pure entertainment so I'm not gonna get all pissy if they remake stuff. If the remake sucked then we will wait for a better one in the future, or forget the remake and go with the original.

And the war in Iraq, agree with him on that too. It's a big clusterf*ck.

Yeah, I agree that all people care about nowadays is cash. No one is really interested with anything else.:(

[Mobe1969]

I agree with Michael Bay on this.

I like the originals of what Platinum Dunes was remaking, but you can't treat them as sacred cows. In my opinion, a lot of the remakes I've seen lately (eg, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hills Have Eyes, Dawn of the Dead) have been excellent films in their own rights, and in my books superior.

Both can coexist on the planet. And if you feel so strongly about them, don't fucking watch them, and don't whine about money should be going to some auteur with some fancy ideas. There isn't money being fucking given away here. Money put into a movie is an INVESTMENT. They don't put money into a movie with the intention of loosing it. They do it to make a profit. And seriously this is why Uwe Boll keeps making films. As much as his films might suck, he has NOT lost anyone any money. He has made investors money. I wish I had a way of investing in movies. The returns for even a DTV stinker are generally pretty nice compared to say buying bonds or real estate.

I liked the Hitcher Remake a lot too. I own a copy.

And on a technical side, Michael Bays films are actually works of art in my books. Looking at how incredible The Rock looks like on Blu Ray is a testament to film making. On the other hand, I'm a David Lynch fan, but fucked if I could actually make it through a viewing of his latest shot in NTSC digital cam shitfest. The visuals were just fucking horrific. Having a strong vision and ideas doesn't mean shit in a visual world if you don't have the fucking ability to make it look like a work of art. I know he was trying something new, but fuck me, standard def digital?

[Smokescreen_5]

LOL.. I was watching the Transformers movie for the Umpteenth time and when Sam is getting chased by his car on a pink bike.. (which makes me wonder, does he have a little sister?? ) he topples his bike on a broken sidewalk and lands harsh like.. Mikaela happens to be there at a Burger King with some of her friends and is all like.. Sam.. ?? are you ok? Sam's like.. Awesome.. and Mikaela says.. umm.. yeah.. that sure looked... awesome.. lol.. I got a kick out of the whole awesome part..

[Bumblebee1983]

LOL.. I was watching the Transformers movie for the Umpteenth time and when Sam is getting chased by his car on a pink bike.. (which makes me wonder, does he have a little sister?? ) he topples his bike on a broken sidewalk and lands harsh like.. Mikaela happens to be there at a Burger King with some of her friends and is all like.. Sam.. ?? are you ok? Sam's like.. Awesome.. and Mikaela says.. umm.. yeah.. that sure looked... awesome.. lol.. I got a kick out of the whole awesome part..

LMAO

And that's his mother's bike silly. :p

[Smokescreen_5]

LMAO

And that's his mother's bike silly. :p

his mothers' bike? are you sure?

[hautbasclair]

his mothers' bike? are you sure?

mothers' bike, yes.

[Bumblebee1983]

his mothers' bike? are you sure?

Yup. Pretty sure.

If he had a sister, you would have seen her in the movie.

[hautbasclair]

Yup. Pretty sure.

If he had a sister, you would have seen her in the movie.

Who knows?

They did forget about Barricade at one point of the movie...

[Bumblebee1983]

Who knows?

They did forget about Barricade at one point of the movie...

I think that was just bad editing. *shrug*

but like ya said, who knows....?

[galax]

He can make the people stay sit down for more than 2 hours in front of a screen with eyes wide open.
Regards,

[Smokescreen_5]

Yup. Pretty sure.

If he had a sister, you would have seen her in the movie.

Thats what I thought. But why would his mother have a little girls bike? The bike looked brand new, not something that was 30 years old or so. Had it actually looked like an older bike then I would agree with you that it was his mothers bike, but since its brand new looking, and a small bike.. then .. well.. I just have to wonder.

[Bumblebee1983]

Thats what I thought. But why would his mother have a little girls bike? The bike looked brand new, not something that was 30 years old or so. Had it actually looked like an older bike then I would agree with you that it was his mothers bike, but since its brand new looking, and a small bike.. then .. well.. I just have to wonder.

Yeah, you have a point.

Maybe it was the neighborhood girl's bike. She came over to play with mojo and left it.

*shrug*

But, ya know, Judy Witwicky is an interesting one. She puts bling on a boy chihuahua.

[Smokescreen_5]

Yeah, you have a point.

Maybe it was the neighborhood girl's bike. She came over to play with mojo and left it.

*shrug*

But, ya know, Judy Witwicky is an interesting one. She puts bling on a boy chihuahua.

And she refers to what Sam does in private as.. Sam's Happy Time.. lol

[Chemical Superfreak]

Maybe the bike was there for when Sam's younger female cousins come over they can ride it. My family has toys that we keep for just such an occasion.

[r-type]

He tells the "officer" inside Barricade how his car followed him "here, on my mother's bike" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7i9Ayz6qoA)

[Bumblebee1983]

He tells the "officer" inside Barricade how his car followed him "here, on my mother's bike" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7i9Ayz6qoA)

Oh yeah...he did say that.

Duh. :p:p

[Chemical Superfreak]

Still, that's a really shiny new bike for a grown woman. Oh well

[Bumblebee1983]

Still, that's a really shiny new bike for a grown woman. Oh well

Like I said before, this is the woman who puts girl jewelry on a male dog. :p

[Bumblebee1983]

And she refers to what Sam does in private as.. Sam's Happy Time.. lol

Hahah!! That still cracks me up to this day!

[STEPhon IT]

His devilish humor.

[Smokescreen_5]

He tells the "officer" inside Barricade how his car followed him "here, on my mother's bike" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7i9Ayz6qoA)

Ahhhh.. you're right! thanks for clearing that up for me. I should have picked up on that, but I guess I zoned in on that and didn't watch out for that scene.


Hahah!! That still cracks me up to this day!

:p

[Ana86]

I like the fact that no matter how bad/ sucidial i feel or how crap my day was, when i watch a michael bay film it makes it all go away for that 2/3 hours I'm watching i feel normal and nothing els matters (and his films are some of the very very few that can keep my attention for that long ) so i guess for this i owe him a very very big Thank you !

[Bumblebee1983]

I like the fact that no matter how bad/ sucidial i feel or how crap my day was, when i watch a michael bay film it makes it all go away for that 2/3 hours I'm watching i feel normal and nothing els matters (and his films are some of the very very few that can keep my attention for that long ) so i guess for this i owe him a very very big Thank you !

Same here Ana.

It also goes for when I want to blow something (or someone ;);)) up and can't, I put on one of his movies and that satisfies that craving. :p

[Smokescreen_5]

Same here Ana.

It also goes for when I want to blow something (or someone ;);)) up and can't, I put on one of his movies and that satisfies that craving. :p

Uhhhh... Bumbles... errr.. ya might wanna be careful on how ya say there.. cuz.. I didn't read the "up" part the first time I read that.. :p

[LadiesMan217]

Now this is becoming a sorta "Why we enjoy Michael and his films" type of thread which wasn't the point of this thread at first. Maybe someone should make a thread like that...

[Smokescreen_5]

Now this is becoming a sorta "Why we enjoy Michael and his films" type of thread which wasn't the point of this thread at first. Maybe someone should make a thread like that...

Why make another thread when this thread is doing exactly what its supposed to be doing?

[Bumblebee1983]

Uhhhh... Bumbles... errr.. ya might wanna be careful on how ya say there.. cuz.. I didn't read the "up" part the first time I read that.. :p

You....you....you perv!!! :eek::eek:

:p

[Smokescreen_5]

You....you....you perv!!! :eek::eek:

:p

I know.. :D

[Bay_Fan_Gibson]

The thing I like about Michael Bay, even though I don't know him really, is that he seems like a cool person that "gets it."

It's hard to explain but thats just a quality about someone that differentiates them.

[Bayhem]

People out here feel films are sacred - it's simply entertainment - relax - fight about cry about stuff that is more important in the world.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Morgane]

Michael Bay, what can I say. I adore the man but I can see where all the agro is coming from.

As usual he has a point, a good one even, but his way expressing himself just makes him a target for people who just want to rant on about how soulless he is.

He's right of course, making movies is a business. I doubt that he would argue that it is the only aspect of film making, though. Only that doesn't come across in this quote. He's absolutely right that there are bigger issues to worry about than horror remakes. Personally the I find the whole premis of horror movies faintly funny, just not my cup of tea.

In my opinion what makes Michael Bay great is that he clearly knows that there are times in life when you just go to the cinema to relax. After a particurlarly boring week at work, Michael Bay movies work like a charm. I've never heard him talk trash about Ingmar Bergman, Kurusowa, etc. He's always been very complimentary about Tarantino, about whom nobody would say that he doesn't understand or love movies.
Michael Bay , unlike some critics, is perfectly aware that there are different types of movies for different moods. He happens to make a very lucrative type of movie (I'm talking about his own films not the remakes here).

And unlike some directors of purely entertaining action flicks he isn't a hypocrit about it, he doesn't try to veneer them with a layer of quasi- worthiness. Good for him! Don't change one bit Mr. Bay.

[HarryCanyon]

Some of the recent horror movie remakes were great like Dawn of the Dead (Great but inferior to the original), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th, The Ring, The Hills Have Eyes, Pirahna 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D, The Last House on The Left, Wizard of Gore, King Kong, 2001 Maniacs, Toolbox Murders, Willard and others.

I still think The Hitcher 2007 is inferior to the 1986 masterpiece of horror/suspense, no one can replace Rutger Hauer. A Nightmare on Elm Street was PD's weakest yet! i mean it was alright but not as great as the original classic. Rob Zombie's Halloween was enjoyable but not needed since Halloween was a masterpiece in the first place. Black Christmas was crappy but a guilty pleasure no doubt since the 1974 movie is a true horror classic. Psycho by Gus van Sant was the worst genre remake since it's just the same shit as the original cinematic classic of being shot-to-shot, scene-by-scene, dialog-by-dialog, same script as the original etc. with new actors, bad acting and same music score as it was a body snatcher clone of the original. When that disaster was over when i saw Psycho 98 in the theater at 17 i was mad because they didn't changed nothing, i grew up with the original Psycho since i was 14/15 as it was my favorite horror movie and it's sequels were good too but Psycho 98 was a turkey.

But what about the old school genre remakes like The Thing by John Carpenter, The Fly by David Cronenberg or others? one by brilliant filmmakers who took old movies they grew up with that had something wrong with them and made them better even different than their originals.

I think Bay is a true cinematic genius like Cameron, Spielberg, Del Toro, John Woo or more.