The Essence of Bay

[MitP]

Stephen Sommers. Simon West. Len Wiseman.

All of these guys have been given the label "action movie director", and yet it always seems to be Michael's films everyone keeps coming back to.

Why is that? On the surface, Bay's movies often get the same kind of criticism flicks like THE MUMMY RETURNS and UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION receive. Of course, the people who hate Michael's movies outright (and always will) say there is no difference.

What makes Michael separate from the rest of the pack? What allows TRANSFORMERS to hold up under repeat viewings better than VAN HELSING? Both films are supposed to be made for the exact same audience, i.e. "the popcorn crowd", but how does one do its job better than the other?

Any thoughts?

[BrettLee]

well in my opinion Bay has something that is very rare amounts most action directors. And more specifically across most directors that are visually talented. Now days most action flicks need directors with great visual style. People who can imagine huge explosions, big car chases and on top of that vision have the mental capability and the leadership to be able to handle the pressure of 200+ million dollars resting on your shoulder and knowing 1 mistake, and your career could be over. This is very rare to find in one person, but it does happen with most action directors. Now here is what i think makes Bay different than MOST of them (not all of them, because there are other big budget / action movie directors that also have this talent) and that is a solid understanding of the art of story telling and character. A lot of directors that get into the genre (imo) seem to not have the most solid of concepts of story. They sacrifice what’s important, which is character development and plot for visual eye candy. You could get away with this when the idea of realistic CGI and such things like that where new. But now days every single movie has these elements and to be pulled of perfectly is expected by the audience. You can’t make a movie based on ILM quality CGI special effects anymore alone. You NEED a team of people that understand the art of storytelling both visually and plot/character wise and Bay just has this. He's not a hot shot who comes in and sais "Listen Writers, stop fucking around and put a god damn chase scene here. I have lots of ideas and it has to be right here, trust me its going to be amazing". He is the type of director who despite being known for having visual talent, goes and sais "Listen Writers, stop trying to make what you think a Michael Bay movie is. Have the action come organically, don’t force it and really get the characters and the story set first, THAT is what’s important.” And he's right, it really is what’s important. Because no amount of special effects or amazing action sequences are going to save a film with horrible, boring predictable story with flat 1 dimensional characters, and Bay is one of the few in this genre who understands this IMO. Now why this is I don’t know. Maybe it’s because all the drama and comedy and suspense / horror directors, most of them start off making indi films with a crap camera and no budget and to keep people interested in such crap production value they NEED to learn these values quick. And maybe a lot of action directors start off in commercials and music video's which don’t really require, (a lot of times they have it but they don’t always require) a real solid well told story. That is a medium where you’re not invested for more than 30 seconds to 5 mins long. so story and character isn’t as important, people want to see something that will either make them laugh hard or visually go "WOW!". And maybe producers say "that looks awesome! i want my film to have that style!" So they hire this man who can make kool visuals but really does not have the true understanding of a solid story telling. Bay, despite starting off in Music videos and commercials, is a true film maker and obviously understand everything a film maker should.

Anyway, that’s just my theory, and sorry I’m in a hurry to get out of here so alot of my thoughts might be repeated or hard to follow :P..lol

[devonnewberry]

I love Len Wiseman. He has an awesome visual and his 3 movies he's done are great.

As for Stephen Sommers and Simon West, well... not so much. Stephen fucks his movies up with an overload of shitty CGI and Simon West is just a very forgettable filmmaker. Tomb Raider and When a Stranger Calls? C'mon...

[Simon]

Well, pretty easy. The visual quality.
None of the ones mentioned have anything visually great at all.
And ... the action just isn't boring. For me probably every other action film is pretty boring, in a Bay movie it's the only time where you get "real" big action. Don't know how to explain it but yeah
Btw while Simon Wests recent movies suck (Tomb Raider), Con Air was awesome and probably the only pure dumb action movie ever which also could be Bay film, not for the whole part of course.

[darthrage]

I think opinions vary in what truly is an action director.

You can list guys like:

Rob Cohen
Stephen Sommers
Andrezj Bartkowiak
Len Wiseman
Simon West

But essentially, in the end, there's something about these 5 directors that I enjoy watching the most. Michael Bay, James Cameron, Michael Mann, Tony Scott and John Woo (pre-Windtalkers days).

They have a very visual style and they know how to do something that is very important in film and that is pacing. They would have the right amount of action and then bring in the drama and then action and then drama and then big action. Or have lots of drama and then HUGE action. Or half drama and then NON-stop action throughout. I just find that they know how to pace their movies well so that it keeps the audience awake.

I've been entertained by the first list of directors mentioned but I still find that they produced some medi-ocre, but entertaining films. But they don't provide a level of oooomph that those others provide.

I don't know what it is but they keep their movies on a very "grounded" level so that its not too fantasy like and of course there's the testosterone level that is very evident in alot of the films they have made. Thats one thing that I always love about their movies and that is male professionalism, its prevailent in Michael Mann films.

For Stephen Sommers, I enjoy both Mummy films but its too fantasy like. Like I said, its not "grounded" so one can't identify with those situations.

I liked Bad Boys, the first time I saw it. And then immediately after, I was trying to find more films like this. After I found out that it was Michael Bay's first movie, I looked up more movies from Jerry Bruckheimer and then fell in love with that kind of action genre.

Its almost like comparing fantasy with "street-level" action and thats the big difference. Its 2 different sub genres of action.

[Trigger Mike]

Does Sommers even do action films? I've always thought of him as the adventure guy.

[Mobe1969]

I'll add another major difference:

- Practical Effects.

So many of his films I've been amazed how little CG is used when watching the docos. Like the freeway chase in BB2, the chase in Island - with the rail bogies they were like running radio control cars into steel plates at full speed and the like. And the gun work in Bad Boys. I can go on. It is impressive.

[KTMortimer7]

Well, for me this is what attracts me to Michael's films:

#1: the lighting technique. From what I've seen, he pays special attention to lighting and therefore puts a little something "extra" in the movies.

#2: live action. From what I've heard, Michael does almost everything live action which makes me respect him and his movies because that's a hard thing to do. Not to mention expensive.;)

There, of course, are others but those are the main ones that attract me.

KT

[Mobe1969]

#2: live action. From what I've heard, Michael does almost everything live action which makes me respect him and his movies because that's a hard thing to do. Not to mention expensive.;)


Exactly. Practical effects. He is the master of it.

I just watched Transformer tonight for the first time. I was worried due to the CG nature of it he would have lost this. But no, he definitely hasn't. Everything was practical effects with CG added over the top of it. MB rules

[Chemical Superfreak]

Right, i agree with most of what i read. Bay can give us endless eye candy with humor that just doesn't get old. For my money the Rock fires on all cylinders and hasn't aged a day in it's 11 years. Easily the Bay film i've seen the most, it's the film's humor that keeps me coming back. Like the scene when Connery leave Cage and Cage goes "WAIT where are you GOING?!" Connery is like....thumbs up!. Cage mimmicks and goes "okkkkkkk?! what does that MEAN?" I mean it's just the films <apparently improved moments according to the Crit-DVD commentary> that shine in all Bays' films, obviously the BB series has it's moments to, but i just wanted to point out the humor in addition to all the above mentioned points, all of which i agree with.

I believe it was the Armageddon Criterion Commentary that Bruckheimer says "Bay is Cameron meets Tony Scott" I've thought alot about that comment, and while i can't say i'd put him on Cameron's level just yet, he's definitely the flip side of Tony Scott. He has Scott's visuals, but i just don't feel he has Scott's character development or story down. I mean i can't see Bay mastering Man on Fire the way Scott did, or the intrigue of Spy Game. Obviously Bay could do Top Gun, Domino <far better than Scott did, HATED that movie>, Bev Hills Cop 2 <i have not a single memory of it other than Chris Rock's cameo>, but i think Scott has a style all his own and i believe the 2 are the masters of action. Hands down. I can easily say Bay is my favorite current action director since Woo is worthless to me now, and Woo is the reason i have this passion for action.

[Deckard]

Agree with all the above. I'd like to add that what makes Bay so good is probably because he does get criticised a lot, making things like Bad Boys II and Transformers 'guilty pleasures', to those who criticise, and good old fashioned entertainment to those who don't. I don't want to say the man's 'infamous' (cos that ain't the right word), but if he wasn't so unpopular he probably wouldn't be so popular.

I think what's already mentioned about the look of his films is a key point too. With a BayMovie you can tell every shot has been thought about, over and over and over because everything just looks so goddamned lush.:cool:

[Chemical Superfreak]

Yes, it's all stylized to a T. He uses blues the same way Cameron would.

On a side note, funny story. So i was at the comic book store and i'm buddies with one of the guys there, they already ridicule me for my Bay love, but this one didn't know about it. I says to Brian i says, "So, see Trans. yet?" he goes "sigh...yea, i did, i'm not a transfan, but i think it was pretty good, i mean i don't really like Bay" i go "Here's where you'll hate me...i saw it BECAUSE it was a Bay film, the cartoon? are you kidding me? i never actually watched it...no i was there for some Bayhem" He just looks at me and kinda giggles and goes "WOW. Everyone was there DESPITE it being a Bay film, you went BECAUSE it was a Bay film" i go "Yup damn right i did..."

[Clutch]

I think Bay's already got character development down.

Lincoln and Jordan's relationship in The Island is probably his shining example of this. As for the rest of his movies, well, I have to say, I watch each one every time caring what happens to the characters.

Dear Michael Bay,

Bring Megan Fox and Mikaela Banes back for Transformers 2. AND Shia LeBouf and Sam Witwicky.

[elemental fantasy]

For anybody who is a Bay hater....Fuck You!!!

You watch his movies, like them, but bash him. Piss off!!!

That goes out to my creative consultant as well. :D

Bay's flicks do well because they are made well. Except maybe Pearl Harbor. That one was kinda gay, but the action rocked!!!

[KTMortimer7]

For anybody who is a Bay hater....Fuck You!!!

You watch his movies, like them, but bash him. Piss off!!!

That goes out to my creative consultant as well. :D

Bay's flicks do well because they are made well. Except maybe Pearl Harbor. That one was kinda gay, but the action rocked!!!

I agree.. to all of the above!:cool:

-Kt

[Mobe1969]

I agree.. to all of the above!:cool:

-Kt

Me too. Except about Pearl Harbor. I love that film. Especially the DC.

[KTMortimer7]

Me too. Except about Pearl Harbor. I love that film. Especially the DC.

Yah, for the little I've seen of Pearl Harbor I thought it was okay... maybe I should watch it? Darn college. Takes away my movie life! *sob* I'm a terrible Michael Bay fan! :( I haven't seen Pearl Harbor!

jk.:D

-Kt.

[OmarB]

Oh man, I really hate that Affleck. Only reason I could watch Armageddon and not hate it is because of Bruce Willis.

[Chemical Superfreak]

I'll agree with that. Armageddon needed some serious editing, especially the love story, it got to mushy-gushy, but i guess that's how you have to rope the female audience in. It worked thou, of course. That's why Affleck is in PH too, which is totally unwatchable and not because of the love story but because of the outlandish length of the Theatrical Release. I absolutely regret spending money on PH, and if you haven't seen it, DON'T. It's the only time i'll go against the Pro-Bay tide, i've seen all his other films dozens of times, but i never want to endure PH again.......sorry fellas.

[r-type]

I couldn't help it Mitp. Anyone else think that the thread title is name for a cologne or something. :D

[KTMortimer7]

Yah I definitely thought that it was some sort of cologne or something. :D

-Kt

[Mech_1000]

I think its because the movie is so simple you can sit there and mindlessly watch it over and over again. The story isn't really something that is too interesting, knowing the ending takes nothing away from the beginning.

You aren't at awe from the ending the first time, because normally if you are the second+ time seeing it the movie would lose its zazz. But with Transformers, its always going to keep that spark because every time you watch it its the same as it was when you first watched it.

I think that is what makes a great action movie. Another good example of this is Grandma's Boy. Tell me if you've ever seen Grandma's Boy (and liked it) you haven't watched it a dozen times, I'd be shocked.

[r-type]

Another good example of this is Grandma's Boy. Tell me if you've ever seen Grandma's Boy (and liked it) you haven't watched it a dozen times, I'd be shocked. I own it. I'm not above lowbrow comedies. That movie cracks me the f**k up. Tae Kwon Do Monkey, ftw!!

I agree, and I think when those that are overly critical (sans ones who genuinely dislike his films), tend to paint Bay movies with the same critical brush as movies with weightier subject matter, and that is a disservice to both. I enjoy what one would consider a more serious movie as much as I would a Bay film. But there is a time and a place for it. I'm not gonna watch A Clockwork Orange, Saving Private Ryan, Million Dollar Baby, over and over, but pop in The Rock, TF, BB1&2, Armageddon etc., and I'm there. Well, maybe not PH, but I think you get the point.

[Chemical Superfreak]

I'm in the boat of those who pop in Clockwork, Shawshank, Dead Poets Society, and enjoy them to a deeper extent than the times i pop in any non-PH Bay films. I consider myself a film snob thats in touch with his love of popcorn event action films. I love Bayhem because it's brainless fun hyper stylized, but most of all, FUNNY. My only constant gripe is TRIM YOUR FILMS DOWN. There almost all 2hours 15minutes+, except BB1 which is an even 2 hours. I guess i'm saying i love his films and i realize theres a time and a mood for all types of films in my extensive dvd library.

[LadiesMan217]

I think Bay's already got character development down.

I think the key to a good character is more on the actor's shoulder than the writers. I mean, if a performance is awful it doesn't really make any difference his character is so fletched out that I could write a four paper essay about him. Critics are mostly very hypocritical on this subject; how much character development has the characters in Alien? Clint Eastwood's character in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy is one of the most memorable characters of all time but where's the character development? It's obvious Clint created that character and not the writers. Critics who put down a movie like The Island because the characters (who in this case doesn't even have anything but a made up history anyway I might add) weren't fletched out only makes them look like fools.

The only movie I can really fault the characters in a Bay-flick is in Pearl Harbor and that's mainly because the characters are in center more than in a movie like Armageddon or The Rock. The two main characters aren't developed at all except for the angle about them being friends forever and have a love for flight. But if Affleck and Hartnett were replaced with much better actors with better screen presence they could probably have brought more to the character than was on the page and that is the key.

Armageddon doesn't have that much character development but it's got enough; take Will Patton's character Chick for example. He's only got a few scenes where his history is brought up but we can still pretty much connect the dots and find out that he's a fairly lonely guy, has a fucked up relationship behind him, never met his son, is married to work, is probably a gambler, had done something so bad that he got a restraining order against him and his best friends with Bruce Willis' character whom he seem to have much stuff in common with. Bruce also got a failed relationship behind him, a so-so relationship with his daughter and is a guy that's married to work. Billy Bob's character isn't fletched out much on the page but Billy Bob created a real character of him. I still think it's among his best works; he hasn't really played another - so straightforward - character like this before or since. I still think Armageddon is pretty fuckin' underrated when it comes to characters and acting; it's a fine ensemble that one. The Rock I shouldn't even have to mention in terms of acting. Fuckin' all around great performances in that one be it leading role or supporting character. Hell, Michael Biehn comes in for 15 minutes and pretty much owns the screen. David Morse doesn't got that much to do but you can feel his presence.

ChemicalSuperfreak's comments about watching Clockwork Orange brings up some message board memories. I once had heated arguments with a Bay-hater on IMDB and when I said I of course like other films than Bays he proceeded to name movies that he thought I haven't even heard of, and among those were various Kubrick, Fellini, Kurosawa-films that I very much had heard of and some of them I had even watched. When I said I'd seen La Dolce Vita by Fellini and actually enjoyed it he pretty much laughed in my face and went on I only said that to get some credit and there was no way in hell I had watched that and actually appreciated it. He also said people that enjoy Michael Bay-films should stick to that then; "You don't deserve other films. You don't deserve Stanley Kubrick-movies". I tell you, I take pride in being a Bay-fan because 1) I love his movies and 2) I'm convinced the most extreme religious Bay-haters are fuckin' a-holes... both on the net and in real life.

[redqueenar]

I think the key to a good character is more on the actor's shoulder than the writers. I mean, if a performance is awful it doesn't really make any difference his character is so fletched out that I could write a four paper essay about him. Critics are mostly very hypocritical on this subject; how much character development has the characters in Alien? Clint Eastwood's character in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy is one of the most memorable characters of all time but where's the character development? It's obvious Clint created that character and not the writers. Critics who put down a movie like The Island because the characters (who in this case doesn't even have anything but a made up history anyway I might add) weren't fletched out only makes them look like fools.

The only movie I can really fault the characters in a Bay-flick is in Pearl Harbor and that's mainly because the characters are in center more than in a movie like Armageddon or The Rock. The two main characters aren't developed at all except for the angle about them being friends forever and have a love for flight. But if Affleck and Hartnett were replaced with much better actors with better screen presence they could probably have brought more to the character than was on the page and that is the key.

Armageddon doesn't have that much character development but it's got enough; take Will Patton's character Chick for example. He's only got a few scenes where his history is brought up but we can still pretty much connect the dots and find out that he's a fairly lonely guy, has a fucked up relationship behind him, never met his son, is married to work, is probably a gambler, had done something so bad that he got a restraining order against him and his best friends with Bruce Willis' character whom he seem to have much stuff in common with. Bruce also got a failed relationship behind him, a so-so relationship with his daughter and is a guy that's married to work. Billy Bob's character isn't fletched out much on the page but Billy Bob created a real character of him. I still think it's among his best works; he hasn't really played another - so straightforward - character like this before or since. I still think Armageddon is pretty fuckin' underrated when it comes to characters and acting; it's a fine ensemble that one. The Rock I shouldn't even have to mention in terms of acting. Fuckin' all around great performances in that one be it leading role or supporting character. Hell, Michael Biehn comes in for 15 minutes and pretty much owns the screen. David Morse doesn't got that much to do but you can feel his presence.

ChemicalSuperfreak's comments about watching Clockwork Orange brings up some message board memories. I once had heated arguments with a Bay-hater on IMDB and when I said I of course like other films than Bays he proceeded to name movies that he thought I haven't even heard of, and among those were various Kubrick, Fellini, Kurosawa-films that I very much had heard of and some of them I had even watched. When I said I'd seen La Dolce Vita by Fellini and actually enjoyed it he pretty much laughed in my face and went on I only said that to get some credit and there was no way in hell I had watched that and actually appreciated it. He also said people that enjoy Michael Bay-films should stick to that then; "You don't deserve other films. You don't deserve Stanley Kubrick-movies". I tell you, I take pride in being a Bay-fan because 1) I love his movies and 2) I'm convinced the most extreme religious Bay-haters are fuckin' a-holes... both on the net and in real life.

I swear the reason they're so feral in their hatred is because they're just jealous of him and his success. Completely and utterly jealous. What pleases me so much about Armageddon isn't just that the performances are believable, it's that those characters are recognizable. I know guys just like the guys in that movie. A lot of Bay's films are like that. The circumstances may be wild, but the people are real. (and real people *are* funny and strange!)

The actors are vital. Actor who take these blockbuster gigs thinking they'll just get a lot of exercise and won't have to do any "real acting" are doing themselves and the project a huge disservice. These films are completely character-driven.

[sora]

I once had heated arguments with a Bay-hater on IMDB and when I said I of course like other films than Bays he proceeded to name movies that he thought I haven't even heard of, and among those were various Kubrick, Fellini, Kurosawa-films that I very much had heard of and some of them I had even watched. When I said I'd seen La Dolce Vita by Fellini and actually enjoyed it he pretty much laughed in my face and went on I only said that to get some credit and there was no way in hell I had watched that and actually appreciated it. He also said people that enjoy Michael Bay-films should stick to that then; "You don't deserve other films. You don't deserve Stanley Kubrick-movies". I tell you, I take pride in being a Bay-fan because 1) I love his movies and 2) I'm convinced the most extreme religious Bay-haters are fuckin' a-holes... both on the net and in real life.
Maybe that Bay-hater guy has the wrong idea that a man is defined by the movies he has been watching.
Usually I tend to like wordy and depressing films, but I enjoy seeing Bay films as well. :) And remember, even Mozart was pop music in the 18th century. :D

[sora]

What pleases me so much about Armageddon isn't just that the performances are believable, it's that those characters are recognizable. I know guys just like the guys in that movie. A lot of Bay's films are like that. The circumstances may be wild, but the people are real. (and real people *are* funny and strange!)
I second that. What I like about his movies are not just actions/explosions.

[devonnewberry]

I think critics and Bay-haters don't watch his films for the right reasons. He doesn't make a movie to make you cry. He doesn't make a movie to to get deep into the characters. He makes a movie to entertain an audience. He make ACTION-driven action films, rather than character/story-driven action films.

And I love it.