Transformers
The Island
Bad Boys II
Pearl Harbor
Armageddon
The Rock
Bad Boys

I submit to you the seven released films that Michael Bay has directed (in reverse chronological order).  Looking over that list, would someone PLEASE tell me why this guy has to take so much shit from everyone?  Michael Bay is s*** on every day by thousands upon thousands of net-goers, writers, wannabe directors, movie viewers, and critics.

I get it, sure.  In short, he's significantly more concerned with style than substance.  His characters are flat, he directs bad performances, he's clearly more interested in visuals than story, and on and on.  He has huge flaws.  He does.

I was actually gonna write a long rant here, but I'm too tired.  What I want to know is...why is Bay honestly so bad?  Can anyone honestly say that those seven films are much much worse than all the other action films coming out of Hollywood, winners like Next, National Treasure II, and Paycheck?  Is Bay honestly so offensive, or is he in fact making some of the best action movies in Hollywood, certainly better than some of the garbage given to us by such directors as John McTiernan, Jan De Bont, and Lee Tamahori?  Are there really legions of directors out there who would have made better movies from the same scripts, or is Bay in fact a better action director than most?  Is it really such sacrilege to make fluffy movies that have no depth whatsoever, or do people only object to it when it's loud and action-packed, ignoring fluffy comedy, romance, horror, and even musicals?

I really am curious to hear what people think.

Heretic, I will do better than that and give you 7 reasons why Michael Bay cannot direct...

Transformers
The Island
Bad Boys II
Pearl Harbor
Armageddon
The Rock
Bad Boys

HaHa - Only Joking, The Rock was actually allright!

0 Transformers
+1The Island
-1 Bad Boys II
-9 Pearl Harbor
-9 Armageddon
+1The Rock
-1 Bad Boys
-------------
-18 Total Direction Points

Heretic, I will be a little more serious. I think you are taking this a little too seriously to be honest. The reason why Michael Bay's name gets mentioned so much is that he is someone who is seen by many to represent a breed of directors who make the kind of movies that polarize people. Many many people love brainless action movies and they make lots of money, while more serious movie lovers will tend to stay away. Michael Mann is probably the best of this breed, hence why his name comes up so much - It is a compliment in a way, well sort of.

I myself from your list have only seen The Rock and Armageddon and as I said The Rock was alright. I have got no desire whatsoever to see any of the others. I read plenty of reviews by people who's opinion I respect and I know that these movies are not what I would choose to see. But after sitting through 'National Treasure: Book of Secrets' I know there are far, far worse movies out there and far worse directors (check my sig for an example of probably the worst directors making movies today).

I will honestly say that Michael Bay to me represents what is wrong with Hollywood, but that does not mean I think he is the worst director. And hell he makes more money than me, and made more films than me (for the moment!) But if people love his work then fair enough, each to their own and all that. You can disagree but you cannot stop other people expressing their opinions too.

Michael Bay make easy to swallow pop corn movies - they're usually entertaining but also fairly forgetable.

I will say though that of all the movies he's directed, one stands way above the rest and that's The Rock which is an exellent action flick.

Quoted from The boy who could fly I think it is kinda pointless bitching about people who are more successful than you or me, if you're better, prove it, simple as that, why cry about it, won't change a thing, I know I'm not any better than bay, so I really can't bitch and moan about him till I prove otherwise, there are a lot more important things in life than what movies Michael bay makes, if that is something that bothers you there are more serious issues at hand that need to be looked at.

So you are saying that there should be no such thing as a film critic then? As I bet there is not a single one alive that is more successful than Michael Bay at directing movies.

Are you telling me that you have never, ever offered any criticism to any scripts on this site that were written by better screenwriters than yourself?  if you have then you are either the best screenwriter on this site or the biggest hypocrite.

Everyone is allowed an opinion, there is nothing at all wrong with anyone saying they think an actor cannot act, or a director cannot direct just because they are not successful themselves. part of the whole fun of watching movies is discussing it afterwards and trading likes and dislikes.

After your earlier post today i am even wondering whether you have passion for movies at all because you speak like someone who does not and that sounds strange coming from someone who has made 1356 posts on a screenwriters forum. If someone does not like the directors you love then debate it some or get over it but don't tell people they are not allowed an opinion. If you really care that much tell us why Michael Bay is so good! You never know you may get people to think again at least.

Quoted Text by thousands upon thousands of net-goers, writers, wannabe directors, movie viewers, and critics.

other than critics because someone needs to get paid for giving an opinion... I think most of those are jealousy and bitterness.

Wannabe directors are mad because they can't. net-goers are mad because they can be. writers are mad because they don't understand the film is not necessarily the script that was written by another writer and movie goers think because they paid money that anybody gives a shit what they think.

I respect one persons opinion on MY entertainment and that is me.

Who cares what everyone else says? You paid money to see the movie so it is your own stupidity that brought you to the point where you have an opinion.

Why do people "hate" directors and still pay money to see the films?

Quoted from The boy who could fly ...I know I'm not any better than bay, so I really can't b**** and moan about him till I prove otherwise, there are a lot more important things in life than what movies Michael bay makes, if that is something that bothers you there are more serious issues at hand that need to be looked at. ....If you don't wanna see his movies don't go, if other people like them, so be it, they have that right, I focus on what I like not what I don't like cause it's a waste of energy and time, life's too short...but only bitching and moaning will get you nowhere, look on the bright side, look at what makes you happy and focus your attention on that.  I take what I do seriously, I just try to look at the positive side.

But what is this.....

Quoted from The boy who could fly I thought the omega man was horrible, mostly cause Charlton Heston is an Awful actor

Quoted from The boy who could fly Sicko: The worst documentary ever made, filled with lies disguised as truths, it is so miss informed and manipulative, and it's not even funny, at least fahrenheit 911 was amusing with it's stupidity, this doesn't even have that, just a fat commie a**hole with a camera.

Quoted from The boy who could fly The Invasion:  Never has such talent been wasted on screen, two terrific actors, kidman and craig, stuck in an empty, boring, dull, sci fi thriller, a movie about vomit martians that has not one scene of suspense and the actors seemed just as bored making this as the audience did watching it

Quoted from The boy who could fly Hostel Part 2:  Not as bad as the original, but it is still God awful, no g0od kills other than a castration, no interesting characters, funny dialogue, it isn't even dopey enough to enjoy, it's bad on all levels.

I will stop there because I realize that i am making you look like a dick. Ever heard the proverb about casting stones?

Quoted from Murphy I will stop there because I realize that i am making you look like a dick.

Hey...Jordan can do that all by himself and doesn't need your help, OK?

I kid, of course -- but seriously -- a thread debating the relative worth of Michael Bay is fine for those who desire to do so -- but let's not argue about whether or not one has the right to argue -- because that is just kind of silly.

Michael bay is a terrible director, flat-out. He's got one style that he uses for everything, appropriate or not. He's not the worst director in the world, but he's the one who gets the biggest budgets.

The Rock was my favorite movie when I was a kid and I've seen it 30+ times, so it holds a special place in my heart, but Bay's skills as a director are one-note, and his idea of progressing as a film-maker is banging the same note harder with each film instead of playing something else.

A quick review of his films from me:

Transformers = 2/5
The Island = 2/5
Bad Boys II = 1½/5
Pearl Harbor = 1½/5
Armageddon = 2/5
The Rock = 3/5
Bad Boys = 2/5

But people seem to love his movies. I think most of them are beyond boring honestly, but yes, stuff does blow up, so props for that.

I used to hate Michael Bay movies, then I saw Eli Roth & PT Anderson movies. Hated them more.

Bay makes big loud dumb entertainment. He actually has some style and talent in there somewhere, but it always gets lost in favor of making things "cool". I even brought the Criterion DVD of Armageddon and learned to enjoy it on the So Over The Top Ridiculous It's Fun level. I even thought The Island was Ok, an attempt to make a more serious Sci Fi piece, although the messy plagarism accusations are unfortunate.

I'd really like to see him get a truly good thriller script to work with and see what happens.

I like Micheal Bay. He makes fun movies, and isn't what movies are all about? Having fun watching them? Hell, I even like Armeggedon and Pearl Harber! Ha! I said it!

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack I like Micheal Bay. He makes fun movies, and isn't what movies are all about? Having fun watching them? Hell, I even like Armeggedon and Pearl Harber! Ha! I said it! ~Zack~

I don't think it's a matter of having too delicate a taste in movies. If you don't like Bay it doesn't mean you don't like having fun watching movies. I love brainless fun movies. But a Michael Bay movie is only the former to me. There just comes a time when all the explosions in the world can't make up for fundamentally bad storytelling, unengaging characters and a sucky premise.

Isn't that what writing is about? A good story?

The problem with Bay movies is that they're brainless but tries to play it straight. They take themselves so seriously that it's almost impossible to appreciate on an ironic level.

Well, since you asked...

Snakes On A Plane was a popcorn movie. Michael Bay doesn't make popcorn movies. I'd say Transformers and Bad Boys (I and II) are the only movies that fit what a popcorn movie is supposed to be. I think with the rest of his movies, especially Pearl Harbor and, to a lesser extent, The Island, Michael Bay was actually trying to make movies of Steven Speilberg caliber. If Armageddon and Pearl Harbor were supposed to be popcorn flicks, they wouldn't have long drawn-out speeches from the president or subplots about African Americans in the Navy or finding a second love after the first has died. Popcorn directors don't like to dabble in that kind of stuff. Michael Bay takes his movies pretty seriously but has popcorn sensibilities so as a result, he makes movies that wouldn't be nearly as bad if he approached them as "fluff."

So sorry but I don't think the popcorn label stands.

Most people have a problem with the fact that Michael Bay is all explosions and CGI. After a while, that stuff gets to be boring. That's not my problem with him though. The Rock was actually a decent movie. Not great. Decent. My problem is the sentimentalism. The aformentioned presidential speeches or Ben Affleck swinging Liv Tyler around in his arms while his buddies sing "Leaving On A Jet Plane"... this is the stuff that makes Bay movies unbearable. That and Ben Affleck, of course. The Island had all that and a sledgehammer of product placement. You go to the movies so you don't have to watch commercials. Am I right?

If Bay stuck to movies like Bad Boys and Transformers, he'd be fine. Transformers is quite literally "kid's stuff" and Bay is ill-suited for anything else. That's why the movie was as successful as it was. Really, I can see the appeal in it. Further more, if Bay never made Armageddon or Pearl Harbor, people might not even know his name and his noteriety would be nonexistant. But the fact is Bay thinks he's a genuinely good filmmaker and tries to do more than he's capable of. He's not Speilberg and, if you ask me, he shouldn't try to be.

Sorry. That's definitely a rant but I think it's a legitimate and thought-out response to the question.

Michael Bay is right in the middle for me; he's definitely not the best, but he's definitely not the worst.

I've only seen a handful of his films and I have to admit I liked Bad Boys 2 and Transfromers(Obviously not for their stories).  But to be honest, I don't think I'll ever pay to see one of his films(caught most of them on TV and snuck into Transformers after suffering through the worst 5 minutes of my life: the opening of Rush Hour 3).  

Has Uwe Boll's name been brought up yet?  I haven't seen any of his movies, but I hear they're terrible(Source: IMDB message boards).

In all honesty, I don't think Michael Bay gets as much critiscm, as say, Uwe Boll. Sure, he goes for style instead of substance. And while directing, some of the scripts he has worked with needed a director who could pull character perfomances out of the actors, and that isn't his strong point. If you look at the list:

Transformers - Weak story line. Blurry action sequences. John Turtorro's character?? Exessive product placement.

The Island - Great opening act. Turns from nifty sci-fi to no brains action movie. Over exessive product placement.

Bad Boys II - A sequal for the sake of a sequal. All action. No additional character development.

Pearl Harbor - Tried to fit a sweet and stirring story into the events surrounding Pearl Harbor. Didn't work. characters flat. No product placement though.

Armageddon - This one worked for me. Exciting. Fun characters (though a little shallow and predictable) that worked in the world that was created for them.

The Rock - All the staples of a classic action movie. Good characters. Great conflict. Nice action. This one works for what it was meant to be.

Bad Boys - Another good action movie. Will Smith does up the quality, but still a decent flick.


Overall, the things I don't like about Bay's work are:

1. Product placement (which he admits he does for the extra production budget)
2. Not all 3rd Acts need to be a chase scene with explosion after explosion (The Island could have been a fantastic sci-fi action).
3. Style over substance (as was quoted above by another poster)
4. Poor performances, even from great actors.

That all being said, I've still seen most of his movies at the theatre because once 'n awhile, I like to turn my brain off and be entertained.

Stew

Yeah, Pearl Harbor sucked.  I couldn't even make it through that movie, which is a rarity for me.

It's just annoying to me that Bay's basically synonymous with bad directing when I mean, at least he made The Rock (which I think is fantastic), and a bunch of movies that are, well, okay, at the least.  Definitely touche on the product placement though, I was laughing out loud during The Island.

Also, I think what Bay did with Bad Boys II was pretty cool.  The movie was about as overblown as it gets, sure, but Bay was the one guy who's had the guts lately to stand up and make a brutally violent action movie in mainstream Hollywood.  Not only that, but he was trashing REAL cars, shacks, and mansions.  If you watch Bad Boys II, the CGI used in the action is actually kept at a fairly surprising minimum.

I'm always suprised when people hate Armageddon.  I've always enjoyed it, although I mean, obviously it's uh, a bit on the cheesy side.  But to be honest I think it's pretty well shot and acted (even if you don't like Ben Affleck, which I don't), and the script...well, at least it keeps things moving along...

Oh and yeah, I can see what you're saying, James.  Personally I don't think he takes himself too seriously though...I think he takes serious projects (like The Island) and then forcibly turns them into fluff.  I think that the potential seriousness of The Island was just left over from pre-Bay scripts...I don't think he ever intended to make anything other than a poofball.  But maybe.  Who knows.

Sucks though...The Island had a hell of a lot of potential.

Out of everything he's done, I agree that The Island had heeps of potential... it was just not his type of movie. The resulting flick is what happens when you marry a director to the wrong project. It was good, but it could have been great (and if he didn't go over-budget and called in the product placements, it would have been even better!).

Stew

He's a whiner.  That's why people "hate" his movies.  Criticize him or his work and he's on his blog, another blog, skywriting, in the press complaining about the treatment.  Pick on him and he'll give you plenty to work with if you've got a movie site or a blog.

Bruce Willis said he didn't enjoy working on Armageddon.  One of the reasons he mentioned was that the director was a screamer.  Since then Bay has criticized Willis and his work at every turn.  Kate Beckinsale was very vocal about him terrorizing her on the set on Pearl Harbor -- calling her ugly and fat in front of the crew.  According to Bay in the press he made her a star and she should kiss his feet.

This past summer he had two very public meltdowns.  One was about the Blu-Ray disc format and the other about the producers of the Transformers (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/michael-bay-wants-to-get-facts-straight/).

And then there's that weird thing where he claimed to be John Frankenheimer's son for years.

Quoted from Tierney Bruce Willis said he didn't enjoy working on Armageddon.  One of the reasons he mentioned was that the director was a screamer.  Since then Bay has criticized Willis and his work at every turn.

Michael Bay wouldn't be the first director to have problems with Bruce Willis from what I've heard and Willis has made his fair share of shite movies.

Quoted from Heretic Also, I think what Bay did with Bad Boys II was pretty cool.  The movie was about as overblown as it gets, sure, but Bay was the one guy who's had the guts lately to stand up and make a brutally violent action movie in mainstream Hollywood.

Who are you comparing him to?

Armageddon: PG-13
Pearl Harbour: PG-13
The Island: PG-13
Transformers: PG-13

If anything Michael Bay has no guts whatsoever to fight for realism, gore or whatever you wanna call it. As of late only bad Boys II was rated R. before that you have to go 12 years back to the Rock.

Mainstream directors who consistently do R-rated movies:

David Fincher
Michael Mann
Ridley Scott
Tony Scott
Zack Snyder
Mel Gibson
The Warchowskis

So unless you're comparing Michael bay to Gore Verbinski or Jon Turteltaub, I don't think his track record is very impressive.

Quoted from Death Monkey Mainstream directors who consistently do R-rated movies: David Fincher Michael Mann Ridley Scott Tony Scott Zack Snyder Mel Gibson The Warchowskis So unless you're comparing Michael bay to Gore Verbinski or Jon Turteltaub, I don't think his track record is very impressive.

I did promise myself I was gonna try and stay out of some of these conversations and spend my time writing scripts instead. I seem to get carried away with myself and cannot seem to limit my responses to a couple of sentences. I will stop but Death Monkey has made a good point here and done his homework. I am not a big action fan at all but when I do want to watch an action / thriller movie then you can do a lot worse than the list Death Monkey has come up with.

Take the Scott brothers, not only are they capable of making a bloody R-rated movie but they inject the one thing that is missing from all of Bay's movies, and that is intelligence. There is no rule whatsoever in hollywood that says all big budget 'popcorn' action movies must be devoid of intelligently scripted drama. Tony Scott can make a movie every bit as exciting as a Michael Bay movie that will please the action fans but also ensure there is a good enough story in there to please everyone else and the same can be said for everyone else on the list - although I am not the greatest fan of Michael Mann but Collateral was pretty decent. Compare 'Man on Fire' to anything that Michael Bay has ever directed and you tell me how he stacks up!

For me the whole argument about Michael Bay rests on the fact he cares far less about the story then he does the action. If you are the type of movie fan who does not care too much about story then fine, each to their own. But it just seems really strange to be starting this debate on a website devoted to the art of crafting stories for the big screen.

Sorry, DM, I didn't mean that Bay consistently does violent action movies.  I just meant that he had done one this century, which I don't think many people do, but I think we may have differing views on what an action movies are.

I guess I'm torn here, because I'd have to argue that Bay is in a different (lower) class than most of the directors you mentioned.  To me, what Hollywood is missing is the guts to do mindless R-rated action stuff like they did in the eighties and nineties, with guys like Schwarzenegger and Stallone and Russell.  Ridley Scott or David Fincher can much more easily justify an R-rated movie to the studios, because they make deep, intelligent films.  It's a much harder sell to the studio (I would think) in this time if you just say, "Not only is this movie pointless and stupid, but it's going to be horribly violent, so only adults can see it" than to say, "This'll be an intelligent film for thoughtful adults, which is convenient because it'll be violent enough that only adults can see it."  Black Hawk Down is an easy sell for an R rating...it's about war.  Fight Club is an easy sell for an R rating...well...for obvious reasons haha.  I like that back before I was born, there were violent, adult-oriented movies that were still dumb popcorn entertainment.  Most of the directors on your list make excellent films, but they're not dumb films, and that's the distinction that I would make between them and Bay and also the distinction I would make in the merits of having made an R-rated film.

Or is that lame?  Haha, I don't know.  And of course, The Wachowskis, Gibson and Snyder all made nice mindless action films for adults, although I think perhaps the Wachowskis were striving for more.

Quoted from Murphy Tony Scott can make a movie every bit as exciting as a Michael Bay movie that will please the action fans but also ensure there is a good enough story in there to please everyone else and the same can be said for everyone else on the list - although I am not the greatest fan of Michael Mann but Collateral was pretty decent. Compare 'Man on Fire' to anything that Michael Bay has ever directed and you tell me how he stacks up!

I really like most of the directors on that list, but I don't think any of them please as wide a range of action fans, I really don't.  Which is a shame, because except for Snyder, I consider them all better directors than Bay.  Sure, most of them make better movies, and they SHOULD generate bigger audiences, but obviously they don't (except for the Wachowskis, ironically probably the least consistently talented on that list).

I guess I just think it's strange to talk about a director being gutsy because he's made ONE R-rated movie in the last 5 movies. Tony Scott does pretty mindless action as well, The Warchowskis too. No, they're not 100% the same as Bay, but who is? It seems like it's a very narrow category we're dealing with here. Basically you're comparing Bay to other directors who are as mainstream, as corporate and without creative ambition as he is. To me that's like saying Osama Bin Laden isn't so bad...compared to the ebola virus.

Even more directors with more R-rated films under their belt than Bay (in the new millennium), and this time I went straight for no-brainer action:

Antoine Fuqua
John Woo
Guillermo Del Toro
Len Wiseman
Renny Harlin
John Singleton
Ronny Yu

So again who specifically are you comparing him too? Who doesn't have guts in Hollywood?

I think what it comes down to for me is asking: What does Bay as a director bring to the table? What are his skills? I think people sometimes look at his movies and they're shiny-shiny pretty and have a nice production value, so he can't be that bad, but that's just that - production value; that's a good cinematographer, a decent editor doing things by the book. So what can Michael do? Where does he excel?

I think Michael Bay has a lot in common with Brett Ratner actually, except that Bay perhaps has an inkling of a style (which sucks) whereas Ratner has no personal trademark at all.

Btw. I just love Mark Kermode's review of Transformers and his impression of Bay :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0d6G1X278s