How about a good film rather than some money-making creation?

[RealHero]

The big problem I have is this....Bay seems to think that making a profit is better than actually making a good film. For example, making sure that he does not go over budget rather than saying f%$£ the budget!, if more money is required to make the film better then more money it is.
Transformers was just a pure money-making excercise. Bay tried to cater for every single demographic in order to maximise profits...sounds like business thinking. The casting of Megan Fox, Shia, the soldiers, the predictable comedy, very easily digestable story and obviously the amazing graphics. The last thing this film was about were the Transformers. They were just a vehicle for Bay to have his own money-making franchise. It will be a very sad day when the quality of a film is seen through the eyes of $$$ rather than actual qaulity filmmaking.

A few pointers for Bay, hopefully he'll listen:

- Don't cut so much. Being assaulted with so many images loses any drama of story and does not make the audience care for the character

-Putting too many jokes in a film makes it a COMEDY nothing else. Last time I checked, Transformers was not a pure COMEDY but an action/adventure.

-Better script? A script that actually has some structure with a story. Watch Terminator 2 again for how to make a quality blockbuster.

-Stop using slow-motion all the time. Using it is good, for when it is right. But when you just keep on using it, it just becomes rather annoying

-For the sequel, actually try and connect Transformers with pop culture and put some music in there from actual good artists. The soundtrack from those rock bands was awful and did nothing to really instil Transformers in the minds of today.

That's all for now, I'm sure there's lots more. Seriously Bay, you need to listen to some of your critics; not all but some are right....

[alexsm]

First thing: This is Bay's Transformers, not 80's Transformers.

Well, i don't think "f%$£ the budget!" is a good idea. When people spend so much money in your film they trust you to spend it wisely. If you don't, maybe they don't trust anymore.

Bay's cutting is a trademark, and works excelent in all his films 'til the date.

Transformers is action/comedy, not just a comedy. And, whatever, this is Bay's transformers, not the original transformers. And the comedy parts are some of the best of the film.

About the script i have not too much to say, Bay's scripts are quite irregular.

Stop-Motion, again, is part of Bay's visual style. And in my opinion is always very well used, much better than (for example) Zack Snyder did in 300 or John Woo in Face Off or M:I 2

I saw the commentaries and extras of some of his movies and is true that Mike has a "money making" mentality because if you don't make money you can't have big budgets, but also a strong "i do what i want, and what i do is what i like".

[kevski]

backed

[RealHero]

I don't care whether he does what he likes or what he wants. The first thing is about making good films and making good movies. Who cares how money you make? Bay does not deserve to be called a filmmaker because the business is an art and not a business. Bay should just be called a business-man...end of.

Also, the comedy in Transformers was very low brow, cheap and poor. People go to cinemas just to have fun and not to engage in a film. If you try to engage in Bayformers, you will find a weak, weak script some poor acting and directing that is too rushed and belongs in a commercial. Don't give me the whole visual style thing because what Bay does is what Tony Scott does, but Scott makes better FILMS and actually tries to tell a story and not just focus on making profits. Don't insult the art...

[RealHero]

Just to add...budget should never restrict you from making what YOU think is a quality film. Sometimes, you need that extra big scene to really convey your story and create that unforgettable experience for the audience.

[alexsm]

World works around money, filmmaking works around money. No money, no Film.

¿You don't care about budget? Kerry Conran did that ($40M expected budget, $70M final official budget, $120M rumored final Budget) with sky captain and none wat him to make another movie. The movie was fine, but i doubt he will be ever allowed to make his second movie.

If the producers trust you, they give you more creative freedom. If you want to have absolute freedom, you have to put your own money.

It's easy; if you need $150M to make your movie, you need to convince some people to lend you the money. If they think that's a risky investment then you probably won't have that money.

And between Bay style and Scott's style there are huge differences.

And talking about "making money" thinking... Let's talk about Deja Vu, a movie made only for making money, where Tony Scott abandonned the whole style he was brushing up with Spy Game-Man on Fire-Domino only because the last bombed.

Time is the only real critic. If your movie passes the time barrier, then your movie is good. And at least The Rock and Armageddon (this is fastly becoming a classic, at least here where was absoluteley hated when it was released) seems to be better considered than before, and Pearl Harbor is going in the same way.

You don't like Bay's work, so ¿why do you want to see his next movie? I don't like Ridley Scott's work since Blade Runner, so i don't care about his future works.

[xAgonyxScenex]

fuck the budget? dude....you apparently have no insight into the films business. Major or indie. You don't just "fuck" the budget. Someones providing you that money.

[nz.hugh]

You have quite a misconstrued viewpoint there.

But hey, damn, you should put forward a proposal to produce Transformers 3. You seem to know what you're doing

Oh and while you're at it, wiki 'indie film'

[fu2kimus_prime]

Sorry stopped reading everything the original poster had to say as soon as he said Scott is a better storyteller (I love Scott, but that's the funniest thing I've read in awhile). Not that he was saying anything of much worth before that.

Transformers has always been about quick comedy one liners, and cool action, Bay's film delivered everything that was needed, and more. Ofcourse Bay wants to make money and come in under budget, aswell as making enjoyable entertainment. I really don't see the problem? The thing is Bay has a great unique style, and does things his way, it just so happens that his style, and his way resonates really well with the general public, and he would be a fool not try to capitalise on it with every film

[ZenDavis]

No disrespect to Michael but if you look outside of the bubble that is MichaelBay.com, Ridley Scott is by far considered the better director. I'm not saying he is or is not, but laughing off someone who feels such only makes you look ignorant.

[fu2kimus_prime]

If that was aimed at me I was talking about Tony, not Ridley. If not forget it I said anything.

[ZenDavis]

If that was aimed at me I was talking about Tony, not Ridley. If not forget it I said anything.

In that case you're quite correct. Nevermind me.

[Beej]

Don't think anyone is laughing off other people. If the studio/execs wanted Ridley or Tony Scott they would have hired said directors. Bay is a director for hire. Was hired to do a job, and he did said job. Whether you like it or not, or any critic in town liked it or not is noted however, the audience responded with the price of admission and the studio is happy, the toy maker is happy and in general most of the fans are as well.

If you want to finance a film, then you get to call the shots as to who is hired, etc. But if you were director, and you had your marching orders, and it was to make a movie about giant robots coming to earth and it was based on an animated television series from the 1980s… what Bay did was what he was hired to do, and with a resounding squeal of approval from the studio, toymaker and banker.

For all the talk of artsy medium, it doesn’t pay the bills. Not for any studio and not for any artist. For every five art house films which a half-percent of the population sees (i.e., majority does not) you have to make at least one film that gets decent box office numbers. It is simple box office economics, and Michael Bay delivers on a platinum platter. Perhaps one day Mr. Bay will do an artsy project the critics will love, until then, he’s helping finance the industry so others can make the highly acclaimed and awarded films even if not many see them.

Besides, you can’t please all the people all of the time. Sorry, just how it is -- and that's here in this forum and out in the real world.

[RealHero]

Hmmm, ever heard of QUALITY?

You can STILL make a quality film for much less money, but you actually have to be very good to do so. Good films make more money than bad films....it's logic. Most guys did not bother watching Transformers a second or third time because it was a bad film. A lot of guys I spoke to just said plainly the film was bad. Great effects but forgettable film. Now, even with all the money it made...imagine if the film had a good story and better developed characters? Who knows how much more it would have made.

It just pisses me off that this is even an issue. A guy who can't be bothered to improve in his craft of filmmaking and shows his profits as validity for his status as a filmmaker really annoys me. At least, at least...let Bay be called a businessman and not a filmmaker.

[Mech_1000]

I don't care whether he does what he likes or what he wants. The first thing is about making good films and making good movies. Who cares how money you make? Bay does not deserve to be called a filmmaker because the business is an art and not a business. Bay should just be called a business-man...end of.

Also, the comedy in Transformers was very low brow, cheap and poor. People go to cinemas just to have fun and not to engage in a film. If you try to engage in Bayformers, you will find a weak, weak script some poor acting and directing that is too rushed and belongs in a commercial. Don't give me the whole visual style thing because what Bay does is what Tony Scott does, but Scott makes better FILMS and actually tries to tell a story and not just focus on making profits. Don't insult the art...

So why does Michael Bay have to make movies specifically for you? Who are YOU to say "This director is mine! He must make films to my standards, not yours!" I can easily say Transformers is one of the best movies I have seen, it keeps me interested, I enjoy the action, the comedy. My only beef is some of the scripting and personality attached to the characters. I cant say I "care" for any of the characters in the movie, but this is NOT the type of movie that should have characters I get attached to. I want to see top notch graphics and a spectacle of explosions. Go watch LotR if you want in depth character detail and a mystifying adventure.

[nelson]

The big problem I have is this....Bay seems to think that making a profit is better than actually making a good film. For example, making sure that he does not go over budget rather than saying f%$£ the budget!, if more money is required to make the film better then more money it is.
Transformers was just a pure money-making excercise. Bay tried to cater for every single demographic in order to maximise profits...sounds like business thinking. The casting of Megan Fox, Shia, the soldiers, the predictable comedy, very easily digestable story and obviously the amazing graphics. The last thing this film was about were the Transformers. They were just a vehicle for Bay to have his own money-making franchise. It will be a very sad day when the quality of a film is seen through the eyes of $$$ rather than actual qaulity filmmaking.

A few pointers for Bay, hopefully he'll listen:

- Don't cut so much. Being assaulted with so many images loses any drama of story and does not make the audience care for the character

-Putting too many jokes in a film makes it a COMEDY nothing else. Last time I checked, Transformers was not a pure COMEDY but an action/adventure.

-Better script? A script that actually has some structure with a story. Watch Terminator 2 again for how to make a quality blockbuster.

-Stop using slow-motion all the time. Using it is good, for when it is right. But when you just keep on using it, it just becomes rather annoying

-For the sequel, actually try and connect Transformers with pop culture and put some music in there from actual good artists. The soundtrack from those rock bands was awful and did nothing to really instil Transformers in the minds of today.

That's all for now, I'm sure there's lots more. Seriously Bay, you need to listen to some of your critics; not all but some are right....

This is Transformers we're talking about... entertainment... not Shakespearean theater.

[uraydo]

Transformer Soundtrack freaking rocked, and I don't even like half the bands on it.

[Smokescreen_5]

Hmmm, ever heard of QUALITY?

You can STILL make a quality film for much less money, but you actually have to be very good to do so. Good films make more money than bad films....it's logic. Most guys did not bother watching Transformers a second or third time because it was a bad film. A lot of guys I spoke to just said plainly the film was bad. Great effects but forgettable film. Now, even with all the money it made...imagine if the film had a good story and better developed characters? Who knows how much more it would have made.

It just pisses me off that this is even an issue. A guy who can't be bothered to improve in his craft of filmmaking and shows his profits as validity for his status as a filmmaker really annoys me. At least, at least...let Bay be called a businessman and not a filmmaker.

Who is this guy? Wait.. you aren't by chance .... Uwe Boll are ya? LMFAO... oh well.. idiots is what makes the world look at them and laugh. We are all laughing at you.

Oh.. and Transformers IS quality entertainment!

[kevski]

Dude, if you're over 15 then I'd be surprised. You're posts are so naive it's beyond belief.

Bay would probably love to 'fuck the budget'. But it's not his money is it?

The only thing I agree with is the lack of character between the transformers. Bay has probably acknowledged this and will put it into the sequel.

A good film makes more money than a bad film? Only in a perfect world!

[alexsm]

First, Mike makes quality films. ¿You don't agree? Not my problem.

There are many ways to make a good film. You could have a good story, great characters, good pacing, impressive scenes, etc... many ways. The ideal film would have everything, but i doubt the perfect film would be ever made. But the most important thing; A good film must be entertaining and well made. Without this there's nothing to talk about.

All Mike films are extremely entertaining and (maybe except Bad Boys I) technically excepcional. There are many other things, but this are the basics.

Well, have to go. More later.

[Swift]

I'm majorly suprised that Nelson or one of the other moderators didn't close this thread. I think that this is completely disrespectful to Michael. This forum is for people who actully care for and like his work. And if you don't agree, maybe your on the wrong website.

[uraydo]

I'm majorly suprised that Nelson or one of the other moderators didn't close this thread. I think that this is completely disrespectful to Michael. This forum is for people who actully care for and like his work. And if you don't agree, maybe your on the wrong website.

IMO, if we ignore the bad things people say about Bay it would make reasons for being here hollow and meaningless.

[Darth Stitch]

People have already made good points about filmmaking, the industry and money so I'll hold my peace on that. My former boss was both a marketing manager for my country's cultural institution for the arts and whatnot AND an indie filmmaker. I've seen him work, I've also seen him balance the need to make a good film and the budget he's got. And dude, we live in a Third World country - money really, really counts.

As for Michael Bay and his movies? I like his movies, that's my opinion. I have fun with them, I even went back to see Transformers for the second time in the theaters and wished I was able to catch it on IMAX. The fact that his movies make money mean that a whole lot of people share my opinion. They're summer BLOCKBUSTERS, not Shakespeare. Are we idiots for liking his movies and spending the money to watch them? I should say HELL NO. He's said it himself - he makes movies for teenage boys (I'm not a teenage boy but heh, appeals to my inner tomboy, there).

Are there movies that make money but disappoint fans? Sure... they won't have legs in the box office or the DVD sales aren't too good... most times, people will spend for something they like and will stay away from what they don't.

[Shadow]

Who is this guy? Wait.. you aren't by chance .... Uwe Boll are ya? LMFAO... oh well.. idiots is what makes the world look at them and laugh. We are all laughing at you.

Oh.. and Transformers IS quality entertainment!

I can say i agree with you smoke.

[uraydo]

and Transformers IS quality entertainment!

meh

I won't argue that it is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, but so is the Life Aquatic... and that was a great movie.