July 23, 2014

What Michael Bay's Films Can Teach Us About Visual Storytelling

While his films are incredibly successful financially, director Michael Bay is one of the more polarizing filmmakers working today. Many consider his style the downfall of entertainment as we know it, while others love the non-stop action that oozes from nearly every frame. If fewer people watched his films, they may still be interesting visual specimens, but the fact that his movies have grossed billions and earned him two Criterion Collections makes him a different case entirely. Tony Zhou has put together a video exploring "Bayhem," a visual style that is rather unique to Michael Bay and his brand of storytelling.

A brief intro to the piece from the Vimeo description:

There are filmmakers we love and then there’s Michael Bay. Even if you dislike him (as I do), Bay has something valuable to teach us about visual perception. This is an exploration of “Bayhem” — his style of camera movement, composition and editing that creates something overblown, dynamic and distinct.

For educational purposes only.

For further reading/viewing, I recommend
Letterboxd user sydney’s review of Bad Boys 2: bit.ly/1iZe7SX
Michael Bay watches West Side Story: nyti.ms/Vg7ErY
Werner Herzog Talks About Wrestlemania & Anna Nicole Smith: bit.ly/VfQ9Iu

Bay's style is certainly unique, even though the constant action and complex layers can actually numb our senses in a negative way. His work has absolutely influenced the rest of Hollywood -- because if there's one thing we can be sure of in this business, it's that anything successful will be copied and imitated to death. As Zhou mentions in the video, Bay has even cannibalized himself with certain visual techniques.

From a producing point of view, he's mentioned that he gets his films done on time and under budget. There is no doubt putting these giant movies together is a colossal feat, but with the exception of one film, The Island, there are no financial flops in his portfolio (and that movie likely made money after all is said and done). That's impressive even if you consider him a hack.

Be sure to check out the rest of Tony's videos over on his page, a number of which we've shared here.

Link: Tony Zhou -- Vimeo

Your Comment

81 Comments

The audience of his films are geographically at sea during his action scenes - you've never an idea where anybody is in relation to each other, people or robots. His film are not worthy of any study.

July 23, 2014 at 8:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Fresno Bob

Says the artistic no name with superior taste who is not seeking money because the language of film is enough to satisfies ones hope, needs and desires /s

July 23, 2014 at 8:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Tyler

No need to be rude when a valid point is being made. Michael Bay is not only a subpar filmmaker, but also a horrible human being who treats his cast and crew like garbage.

He warrants a study on financial success in film, not in the actual craft.

July 23, 2014 at 3:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Taylor Russ

Okay all this said, I just watched the video... Worth studying his techniques if you want to be able to achieve a specific effect - as well as explaining what makes the shots feel larger-than-life. It was definitely helpful.

July 23, 2014 at 3:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Taylor Russ

I think that is 100% true. Like him or not, you can learn something about the "wow" factor.

August 8, 2014 at 12:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jack Sparrow

Nailed It!!!!!

July 26, 2014 at 2:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply

I don't know dude. Have you seen Transformers 4 yet? Bay really lengthened his shots, and in doing so built a really strong sense of continuity in his action scenes this time out. If you haven't, you should really check it out. It is easily the most well-made Transformers film, and probably his cleanest and most intelligible (at least in terms of action sequences) since the Rock.

July 23, 2014 at 9:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

And I think you mean his audience are figuratively, or metaphorically at sea. Geographically they're in a chair in front of a screen.

July 23, 2014 at 9:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Tim

Even if you don't like it, there's merit to studying bad movies, especially if it's the infamous creator of bad movies. There's value to not only learning from what you like, but what you don't like as well.

There's plenty to study about Bay—namely, how is it that he can consistently create movies that are critical failures but be unbelievable financial successes?

I love Tony Zhao's Vimeo channel. I hope he keeps this up.

July 23, 2014 at 9:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply

Tony Zhou*

July 23, 2014 at 9:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

I agree. You can learn how to fix a car by only playing with ones that run.

July 23, 2014 at 2:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

If you were learning to drive, watching a guy take a car and smash it head-first into a brick wall might be a useful lesson in the fragility of life, but you only need to see it once.

July 24, 2014 at 11:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Indiana Ford

Driving and building cars are different things. Much like creating a film and being an audience member are different things.

July 28, 2014 at 2:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Tyler

George Lucas copied his Star Wars scenes from an old war movie! The framing, timing, actor's gesture and actor's text in Star Wars was precisely the same as in the original movie.

July 23, 2014 at 8:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
manu

You mean Leni Riefenstahl movies, right?

July 23, 2014 at 12:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply

Leni Riefenstahl didn't stage or create a thing in her documentaries/propaganda films. All she did was cozy up to the Nazi regime and tag along with a camera to document the visual spectacles the Third Reich was fond of putting on. Her films are important only in that they documented an important but sinister part of human history, not for any artistic or creative innovations of the filmmaker herself. Even the editing process--where a documentary is truly made--was driven not by artistic vision or sensibilities but rather the looming power of the Nazi propaganda machine.

July 23, 2014 at 5:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Alex

are you serious? ...she was one of the greatest female directors ever and influenced the way, how things that are meant to impress, are captured on film until today. Like a lot of artists she hooked up with the ones that help realize the projects.

July 23, 2014 at 6:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
dom

Here's my problem with Michael Bay. Yes, some of his movies have got some great spectacles. But I am adamantly sure that there are numerous other filmmakers and photographers out there, both professional and amateur, who could, given the same financial resources and goldmine intellectual property, compose just as stunning a visual scene as he could. The problem with Michael Bay is he doesn't understand story. Like, at all. The beautiful scenes of cinematic history in all their visual splendor are memorable and meant something because a given scene's beauty and breathtaking visuals were narratively justified within that the moment in the story. In Bay's movies a breathtaking visual will literally pop out of nowhere, stylistically and narratively unjustified and downright jarring, and if a viewer is caught thinking, "What an incredible visual!" rather than "What a powerful moment." then in my opinion you've swung a large powerful bat and completely whiffed the ball in what is ultimately a storytelling medium. I liken his treatment of "stunning visuals" as a magician amassing and collecting the world's greatest magic tricks and jamming them haphazardly and recklessly into a magic show, performing them haphazardly with zero finesse and zero attempt at a running theme, and thereby ruining the impact of those same powerful magic tricks for other magicians in the world because a now desensitized audience has already been introduced to it in a crude way.

He'll continue to rake in the money, because he delivers special effects and loud noises with established intellectual property, and that's what the masses have been conditioned to accept as big money entertainment. So when someone like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, etc. delivers both story AND spectacle it's a rare breath of fresh air and hailed as a monumental achievement. You can't hate too much on any filmmaker who is financially successful in a cutthroat business, but it just irks me that his Intellectual and narrative laziness squander the potential impact anyone can make with any story with the endless resources he has access to. I mean really, with a $200 million budget you really can't throw $20k at some no-name writer to beef up the story and dialogue?

July 23, 2014 at 9:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
Alex

Sorry, meant to post that as a new comment. And yes, I'm serious about Leni Riefenstahl. I was in the early stages of writing a paper about her in film school but the more research I conducted juxtaposed against the multitude of accolades I read, the more I began to believe she just might be one of the most overrated filmmakers of early cinema. The techniques she is said to have pioneered for epic spectacle and propaganda were borrowed extensively from her predecessors like Murnau, Lang, Eisenstein, and even Griffith. Their work and similar techniques are even written about by early critics, and it's as if later critics who hail Riefenstahl as a pioneer have completely forgotten about her cinematic predecessors! She was an adequate filmmaker who happened to be given unprecedented access to one of a kind visual spectacles, on the condition that she subvert any sense of morality and turn a blind eye to the atrocities and human injustices the Nazi regime were perpetrating upon entire groups of people.

I was so convinced of my counter-establishment view of Riefenstahl that I wanted to go ahead and write the paper discounting her status as a pioneer, but my professor dissuaded me still after I laid out my case saying, "Once someone has been canonized like she has, it'll be more damaging to you than her by trying to challenge that cinematic sainthood. No matter how valid your case or how your counter-examples ring true."

July 23, 2014 at 10:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Alex

Lucas took from a lot of places. Go watch some kurosawa films!

July 23, 2014 at 2:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DeadChannel

Kurosawa took from a lot of places, go watch some Ford Westerns.

July 23, 2014 at 9:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Abersouth

Haha so true!

July 23, 2014 at 10:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Alex

Film is always about lessons guys.

July 24, 2014 at 1:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Safari with John Wayne in Jurassic Parc 2.

Cave Man with Ringo Star change the prehistoric men for little bear and the music look like inspired from this also in Star Wars 2th.

It's worse with Tarantino many it's remix image and story.
Michael Bay film i watch them but i am not a fan of is work.

July 24, 2014 at 7:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
Pierre Samuel Rioux

August 8, 2014 at 7:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gio

Two equally qualified skilled female ballet dancers dance the same piece of choreography. The first dancer is on stage at the Royal festival hall, the second is in a back-ally street performance space. The first ballet dancer wears a traditional ballet costume, the other in sexy underwear. The first ballet dancer is all natural and the second dancer just happens to have breast and lip implants. Whilst everyone debates which was in better taste, no-one stops to think of the time, skill and talent it takes to execute the choreography in 9-inch platform heels. That's my take on Mr Bay vs the world.

July 23, 2014 at 9:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Martin

If we all knew better than Bay, why are we not there doing better? People, it is easy to say that something is wrong until you do it yourself and you see that it was not as simple as it looked. Bay deals with not just the film, it is the pressure of leading thousands of people into making one tiny 2hour thing.

Try watching NOAH, then you will understand that Darren Aronofsky is worst than Bay. As a filmmaker, at a very minuscule level, I admire his risks. To manage so many thing that goes on like he does in his films, I call that being intelligent.

July 26, 2014 at 4:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Bona

He's not being compared to 'average Joe on the street', he's being compared to other successful film-makers. His being able to physically create a film does not mean one should admire his craft or style.

July 28, 2014 at 11:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Luke

The man is an auteur.

July 23, 2014 at 9:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
moebius22

and you sir are a troll ;-)

July 23, 2014 at 2:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Matt

Look up the definition of auteur, before you try and stir stuff up.

July 23, 2014 at 2:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
moebius22

Technically he is an auteur since he takes control of his own films in many areas, and his films ooze his style. He makes film for the general audiences, and most people seem to like those. They are just hyper kinetic eye candy, they aren't so bad if you just don't want to think about anything and watch a flick. As I say, Michael Bay has his place in the universe.

July 23, 2014 at 3:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

Art is subjective, and there are millions of audience who do like his art. I don't.

July 23, 2014 at 10:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Ebrahim Saadawi

Haters gunna hate,

fact of the matter is Bay is an excellent director. granted his style isnt for everyone, but it certainly has its place in film and on my tv. Just like EDM and classical each have a spot in my stereo.

He is well organized and not afraid to go big (talking about his movie making process). His movies have a ton of moving parts from a film makers stand point and we can learn a LOT from that, even if we dont like his final product (which i enjoy watching).

July 23, 2014 at 10:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Kevin

LOL.

July 23, 2014 at 11:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

LOL?

July 24, 2014 at 6:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

You may dislike Micheal Bay movies (Pain & Gain was pretty good though), but I think that most people miss what these movies are made for. Their big spectacles made for watching in movie theaters. I went to see Transformers 4. Yeah maybe it wasn't the best movie, but I could just sit and enjoy the sound, visuals and giant robots fighting each other.

July 23, 2014 at 10:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

This seems to be what most movies at the theater have become, though.

July 23, 2014 at 2:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
DeadChannel

His films are fun. They are not boring. If you're not overly pretentious, they are very enjoyable.

July 23, 2014 at 10:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Josh

I don't think you understand what pretentious means. His films are the height of pretentiousness. That's the point. They appeal to an adolescent mindset where meaning has to be simple and the pace rushed and scenes bombastic. Art through excess. He is good at that but to me it's painfully boring. I don't have an interest in how he makes his films because the the one layer results are not interesting.

July 23, 2014 at 12:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Space Captain

Or maybe they are boring if you mentally evolved beyond adolescent hero fantasy..... who can say really?

July 23, 2014 at 12:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
tre

Good article. Bay is doing thngs most of us can only dream about. His style is a very dynamic way to shoot. Must say though what he is doing is a bit too action-packed for me. I know the computer game industry and Hollywood are merging, but I don't like a move to feel more like a computer game than a movie.

July 23, 2014 at 10:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Erwin

I don't hate the man. But his tranformes movies run waaay too long. If he could get them down to 85minutes, I'd watch more.

July 23, 2014 at 10:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

Did you watch Power Rangers for the story? Did you ever watch the animated Transformers series for the story? No. You watch it for the action. I have respect for Bay. Watch BTS of his Transformers movies and try to tell me it doesn't look like hard work.

July 23, 2014 at 11:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Will

"Pearl Harbor" was supposed to have a good story but Bay has trouble directing actors and dialog (of course, when Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale are the featured performers, there's only so much any director can do). It sort of reminds me of Hitler - ya, I had to go there - but not Hitler the Führe, as Megan Fox carelessly brought up, but a much younger Hitler the Painter. The relevance was that Hitler was a decent landscape artist but he couldn't draw faces. Understanding human emotions was beyond him. Michael Bay seems to have the same problems. He makes movies about things, not people.

July 23, 2014 at 11:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
DLD

Tony Zhou is my hero!

July 23, 2014 at 11:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Sati

To compare him to another director - a few days ago I watched about a half of Terminator II the Director's Cut, which contain several more Linda Hamilton scenes in the hospital - and remain very impressed how good Cameron can be in both the action and the dialog scenes. I actually think that Bay's camera movement and composition are top notch but Cameron makes complete films while Bay makes really fast, really hot popcorn.
.
PS. Various "net worth" sites peg his at over $400M. Ah, nice job if you can get it.

July 23, 2014 at 11:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

Not a huge fan of Bay, but really great analysis, Tony Zhou!

July 23, 2014 at 12:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply

While Bay may have significant problems with nuances of drama and story, he's easily the most exciting, visual Director on the planet. By virtue of pure timing at my local 25 screen megaplex, I saw Trans 4 in 3D, 4K with Dolby Atmos sound last week and although it was easily 45min too long no one can question the guys absolute dedication to getting every single frame right. Lighting, movement, framing all perfect... you'll not find a bad compositing shot in either. He makes actors "look" great, even though he may not give them time to emote with any subtlety.

I like the review, especially the Bay knock-offs who miss the mark, showing that maybe what he does is a lot harder than it looks. It's ironic that his least profitable film, The Island, actually has probably the best script and story structure of any of his films and remans my favorite. But then anything with Scarlett Johansson is my favorite...

July 23, 2014 at 3:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Lance Bachelder

T4 became the first summer flick to gross over $1B this season. Other than that, the North American box office is down almost 20% this year. Accident or not?

July 23, 2014 at 5:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

No accident. He's selling it to the Chinese. A good economics lesson about the movie. Not boring.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/6/5873099/transformers-4-is-a-master-class-in-...

July 23, 2014 at 10:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Abersouth

An interesting premise that is mostly puffery without substance ... wait, it's like a copy of a Michael Bay movie!
.
PS. It is true about China. T4 has grossed almost $300M there vs. $230M in the US.

July 24, 2014 at 2:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

I think he was offended after very cold reception of The Island and went straight for popcorn. Eat it, get yourself an egg and beat it.

July 25, 2014 at 8:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Natt

I cant believe the words Michael Bay and storytelling are being used in the same sentence. He is about the biggest hack in the business and proof that if you throw enough money at something and make every shot look like a postcard you can still be a success!!

And I will never forgive him for changing Optimus Prime from being a flat nosed truck to being long nosed. Thats pure arrogance when millions of kids grew up loving Optimus for Bay to just completely change the character simply because he liked long nosed trucks better. Bay can burn in hell for that one. Sorry but thats a sore point for me.

Take a look at Pain and Gain for another example of how really really bad Bay is.

July 23, 2014 at 9:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

I am with you 100% Simon Bailey.

July 23, 2014 at 10:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Alex

Really enjoyed Pain and Gain. Best thing he's done since The Rock. The tone's all over the place but I think that's part of the fun.

And complaining about the merits of short nose vs long nose truck feels akin to people moaning that Superman's cloak was the wrong shade of red. It's not an issue...

July 24, 2014 at 2:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Will

Its not a shade of colour difference, its the entire design of the character they changed.

July 24, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply

Do your homework Simon, Hasbro changed Optimus to a long nose in 2002 during the Armada series. Five years before the first feature.

July 24, 2014 at 4:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

11
Reply
Seb Torres

For maybe 25 years Optimus is Optimus. If you asked 1000 transformers fans which is the correct Optimus I doubt anyone will say the long nosed truck. Your showing your age and I'm showing my age :(

July 24, 2014 at 6:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply

Considering I'm in my mid 30s, No I'm afraid your comment about me showing my age isn't valid. My point is saying Michael Bay should burn in hell for something Hasbro did is some what unwarranted.

July 24, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Seb Torres

I figured if you know when Hasbro changed the nose it cant be that long since you were watching the cartoon. Bay had the choice and he received thousands of letters begging him to make it the original Prime and he simply went with what made him happy with no regard for anyone else.

And that was the wrong shade of red on Superman's cape!! so ;P

July 24, 2014 at 6:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

You're 100% right, he did have a choice.. use a design which is recognizable to a younger audience. which since a large part of the demographic going to see be it toy, Cartoon or comic book inspired film. Isn't the worst idea in the world. When Iron man came about they had him in the original(kinda) looking mark 1 suit for about 2 minutes then threw him into the modern era suit. No issues there, everyone loved that. If he had stayed in the Mark 1 for the whole first film that wouldn't have worked out so well financially for Marvel. Hence why Hasbro would have told bay, Do what you do because it brings in money and propels Transformers further.

July 24, 2014 at 6:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Seb Torres

Which is did, I mean it inspired how many new tv series. about 5 or more video games. countless toy releases.

and lets not mention the purple cape... maybe it will go away

July 24, 2014 at 6:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Seb Torres

I would have loved to see a Ridley Scott version of Transformers flat nosed Prime of course. Even the original cartoon movie had more grit in it than Bay's version.

And the soundtrack from the original cartoon movie too. Ridley Scott and Journey, White Snake etc that I'd like to see.

July 24, 2014 at 7:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Visually i could see that been a great choice... White snake... oh yeah!

July 24, 2014 at 7:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Seb Torres

Guys.... do any of us actually believe that if Optimus had been a flat-nosed truck the movies would have been any good?

July 25, 2014 at 10:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Will

No they would still be just as bad but at least Bay would be slightly less of a douche.

July 25, 2014 at 6:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Michael Bays sucks. His camera work is repetitive, his editing is disjointed, and the acting and story are pure shit. He lucked out early in his career with the mindless action genre but box office returns do not correlate to artistic merit. James Cameron is 1000x better and can actually make coherent, exciting, and intelligent films that appeal to a wide demographic and massive returns.

July 25, 2014 at 12:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

Here’s my problem with Michael Bay. Yes, some of his movies have got some great spectacles. But I am adamantly sure that there are numerous other filmmakers and photographers out there, both professional and amateur, who could, given the same financial resources and goldmine intellectual property, compose just as stunning a visual scene as he could. The problem with Michael Bay is he doesn’t understand story. Like, at all. The beautiful scenes of cinematic history in all their visual splendor are memorable and meant something because a given scene’s beauty and breathtaking visuals were narratively justified within that the moment in the story. In Bay’s movies a breathtaking visual will literally pop out of nowhere, stylistically and narratively unjustified and downright jarring, and if a viewer is caught thinking, “What an incredible visual!” rather than “What a powerful moment.” then in my opinion you’ve swung a large powerful bat and completely whiffed the ball in what is ultimately a storytelling medium. I liken his treatment of “stunning visuals” as a magician amassing and collecting the world’s greatest magic tricks and jamming them haphazardly and recklessly into a magic show, performing them haphazardly with zero finesse and zero attempt at a running theme, and thereby ruining the impact of those same powerful magic tricks for other magicians in the world because a now desensitized audience has already been introduced to it in a crude way.

He’ll continue to rake in the money, because he delivers special effects and loud noises with established intellectual property, and that’s what the masses have been conditioned to accept as big money entertainment. So when someone like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, etc. delivers both story AND spectacle it’s a rare breath of fresh air and hailed as a monumental achievement. You can’t hate too much on any filmmaker who is financially successful in a cutthroat business, but it just irks me that his Intellectual and narrative laziness squander the potential impact anyone can make with any story with the endless resources he has access to. I mean really, with a $200 million budget you really can’t throw $20k at some no-name writer to beef up the story and dialogue?

July 23, 2014 at 10:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Alex

Sounds like Bay just follows Irwin Allen's old axiom: "Start off with a bang, and keep up the action until the end credits roll."

July 24, 2014 at 12:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Neil R

At least Bay can direct people around him. He gets stuff done way more than wanna-be indie directors ever can. I've seen some of the art-house indie directors direct and it's an excercise in mind-numbness.

"Maybe the camera could be here? What do you guys think?" Shut up and tell us what to do you piece of s indie director!

Bay films still kinda suck but at least people know on the set what they're doing.

July 24, 2014 at 5:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Terppa Teuvonen

lol this article is so basic

July 24, 2014 at 1:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
john jeffries

Bay knows what people want. People want the same thing they want in their music..."feel good". The majority audience doesn't want to think, or be too drawn in, they just want to enjoy the movie and get on with their lives. They don't want a deeper connection to anything. Majority audiences DO NOT CARE ABOUT CINEMA. They just want to be pleasured. Bay knows how to pleasure them. History proves that if you dumb something down, it will appeal to a mass audience. That is why all of his films are so successful. So, if you just want to make money with your films, do what Bay does, dumb it down. He's a lucky bastard if you ask me.

July 24, 2014 at 3:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Wesley Bower

People want different things at different times, but when they want an action movie they want to be captivated for the length of the movie. They don't want it to drag. They want it to keep them on the edge of their seat, not thinking, just reacting to what they see. Like a prize fight or a football game. They aren't thinking charachter or story. They want to be kept on edge and excited and wowed by the action.

July 24, 2014 at 4:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bob

People want different things at different times, but when they want an action movie they want to be captivated for the length of the movie. They don't want it to drag. They want it to keep them on the edge of their seat, not thinking, just reacting to what they see. Like a prize fight or a football game. They aren't thinking character or story. They want to be kept on edge and excited and wowed by the action.

July 24, 2014 at 4:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bob

Agree. I like his movies for the roller coaster type feel to them. It's much cheaper than going to an amusement park. If I want lots of drama and meaning, real life is all around me. I watch movies to escape real life and to see the cool effects and technology involved in them.

July 25, 2014 at 2:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Dandy

I honestly think Michael Bay's greatest movie was his adaption of Friday the 13th. I think that was the best remake I have ever seen. Also the only movie I have ever been to where the whole audience stood up and clapped after the opening scene.

July 25, 2014 at 11:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
David

Bay-Bay hating is strong in this one. NO H8.

July 25, 2014 at 7:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Natt

Bay's stories are always about explosive endings. He could re-use all the explosive sequences in his future movies and they will still make sense.....by numbing your senses.

August 8, 2014 at 12:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Melvin Chong

Regardless if you love or hate Michael Bay's latest film Transformers: Age of Extinction, it hit more than a BILLION DOLLARS in the Box Office from a budget of $210 million to make it. Say what you want, but the guy is a brilliant film director and filmmaker-businessman. He knows exactly what he's doing to please the majority of action-film lovers all over the world while laughing himself to the bank doing it. I have nothing to say but to admire and congratulate Mr. Bay and his work, yet again.

August 8, 2014 at 6:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Amazing comments. Are you kidding. You may or may not like his films but Michael's complexity of getting his shots is nothing less than amazing. Critics! World is full of them just like armchair football players. He has his style.

March 1, 2015 at 4:01AM, Edited March 1, 4:01AM

5
Reply
avatar
Randall Paul
Lead instructor at PFAS ( USA) and AFSA (Italy)
197

Bay is like the anti-Haneke

February 20, 2016 at 11:17AM

0
Reply