Uwe Boll.
’nuff said.
No. I think we’ve discussed and slammed Michael Bay more than enough and it is time to move on to something else.
It’s funny how Michael Bay has become a cinephile’s symbol for everything that’s wrong with cinema today. To answer your post: no, I don’t think so. I have to say I watched Transformers 2 and it was one the worst movies i’ve seen in my life (and I do enjoy mainstream movies), but how do you measure the worst director? He doesn’t strive for greatness and creates films a lot of people want to see. Only because Criterion released Armageddon doesn’t mean he should be taken seriously. Box office doesn’t say anything about quality.
But the Rock, for example, is watchable. I guess what most cinephiles are mad about are not his movies, but the amounts of people that they attract, while more profound films remain ignored. But you can’t change the way people think, so we might as well let them be…
Ugh, not another Michael Bay bashing.
I swear there are more discussions on here on how crappy Bay is than on how great Bergman, Kubrick, or Tarkovsky are…combined.
Bay is a crappy director. There are a lot of crappy directors. There are a lot of crappy directors worse than Bay.
“I swear there are more discussions on here on how crappy Bay is than on how great Bergman, Kubrick, or Tarkovsky are…combined.”
Very true, I think it’s fueled by the fact that one of his movies is in the Criterion collection.
There are crappy directors sure, but not ones that break box office records. Why do people go to these films everyone is worse than the last. Michael Bay must be stopped. It’s clear that one of us must KILL MICHAEL BAY!!!
@Fandorin
It’s twice as bad as you thought. TWO of his films are on the collection.
oh no! THAT changes everything. the world is doomed.
which one is the other one?
The Rock, which is his best, frankly. But no killing Michael Bay and no more Michael Bay bashing.
“Hi! I’m fishing for comments so I’m going to start a thread on Michael Bay instead of post my thoughts on the ten or so threads already started on him, or do something more productive like discuss film on this website dedicated to film discussion.”
Josh D. – Autuers Police
It’s a tough job, but someone’s gotta do it.
Does everyone forget Roland Emmerich? If so, it’s because he’s even worse than Bay…
Okay, seriously, yes. His films are bad. BUT, as bad as they are, they’re entertaining in their stupidity. I saw the first Transformers in theaters. I laughed through most of it and ate popcorn. I left feeling satisfied. Aware that it was bad, but that’s why I went to see it. In fact, I want to go see Transformers 2 for the same exact reason. Because it’s bad in an entertaining way. But there are directors who make films that are so bad that they are JUST bad. No so bad it’s good about it. So no, he is not the worst at all. Bad? Yes. Watchable? Yes. That second question requires a no for me to even consider him in the running for worsts director.
How about Simon West? Or Wolfgang Peterson?
Tony Scott has made three times as many films as Michael Bay so I’d say he’s three times as bad a director.
Wolfgang Petersen? Das Boot??? Worse than Michael Bay?
Apparently you didn’t see Poseidon – well I did, on IMAX no less.
And I’ll take The Neverending Story over Das Boot any day of the week.
No, the asshole(s) who directed those damn parody movies (Scary, Epic, Date, Superhero, Disaster, etc.) are. They truly clearly don’t give a shit. Not funny, not smart, not even original. Just a middle finger to cinema and to people who watch films, thinking that we’d laugh at anything you throw up in front of a fucking camera. HAHAHAHA! A MIDGET INDIANA JONES! THAT’S FUNNY!!! Not.
I’m wondering – Do people think Michael Bay is really a terrible director? Or is it just because of the types of films he directs?
Rob Marshall. Joel Schumacher. Mel Gibson. The living unholy trinity of shit film. Schumacher seems to have done the world a favor and gone away.
i agree bay is all style and no substance, but to say he’s the “worst” director is a bit much. although i don’t really enjoy his films, i do respect some of the aspects of his filmmaking. mostly his compositions. his camera sweeps can be overwhelming & over used, but his framing can sometimes be so beautiful.
Yeah. Say what you will about everything else, Bay knows how to frame a gorgeous shot. There’s a scene in Bad Boys when Martin Lawrence and Will Smith are driving somewhere or other, and the sunset has turned the sky a thoroughly unreal color, while a giant boat lurches behind them — the control of color and motion in what I’ve seen of Bay’s work has always impressed me, even if I couldn’t give less of a fuck about the characters most of the time.
As crappy as his films may be, Michael Bay is a product of the ticket-buying moviegoer… he does all he’s asked to do. Don’t get me wrong, his movies ARE crap, but sadly, there’s a LOT of people who will buy the tickets, and even more sadly, there’s studios that will STILL keep giving this guy millions to make movies. Looking for quality in a Michael Bay movie is like looking for a good meal in a bag of Doritos. I don’t get the feeling he’s losing any sleep over the reviews of Transformers 2… the guy sees numbers, and he’s probably happy as hell right now… as are the studio heads. It’s a sad scene… but all the more reason to support indie film!!!
Say what you will about everything else, Bay knows how to frame a gorgeous shot. There’s a scene in Bad Boys when Martin Lawrence and Will Smith are driving somewhere or other, and the sunset has turned the sky a thoroughly unreal color, while a giant boat lurches behind them.
I will say something: The framing and capturing of a meaninglessly gorgeous shot is not filmmaking, it requires no particular talent or ability. Any chimp in film school can sign out an Arri 16SR3 and appropriate filter from the lab and go grab a sunset. What’s more, that “thoroughly unreal color” was probably achieved during the color-grading phase. Bay is worthless.
Have a look at Antonioni’s “Red Desert”, where the ship seems to materialize out of the fog, a shot which goes to the technically sweet (the name of a proposed idea of his) idea of landscape, abstraction and state of mind. That’s a shot. That’s cinematography worthy of notice. That’s talent.
I think Bay is actually better than Spielberg or Coppola because with Bay there’s no level of pseudo-sincered, pseudo-profound “ideas” confusing the issue that this is just shlocky entertainment, and causing cineastes without a cause to rhapsodize about how secretly artistic and “genius” his films are.
Hell no, but he sure seems able to get into people’s heads like no other.
Bay is a fuck up,at least Spielberg made a Jaws and an Indiana Jones and why not Close Encounters?what did Bay make?the Rock?don’t make me laugh any more..
and i’ll mostly agree that directors like Boll,Sommers,i’ll second Mel Gibson and i’ll also add the constant mash of wannabes like Swimmer or Foster who want to try their “talent” behind the camera,Schumacher as well,Turteltaub or what’s-it’s-name..are pathetic as hell…
Simon West,haha,yes,brilliant choice and i’ll second again Petersen and put Tamahori on that endless list,people with one decent flick in their filmography aren’t considered something significant for future generations of researchers..
plus,Petersen is the same as Bay is with the difference that Bay has copied nearly everything some predecessors of his did,hehe.
we can all agree to a certain degree though…that Ed fuckin’ Wood is fuckin’ better than the aforementioned individuals,muahahaha.
p.s.: Emmerich IS 1.000.000.000 times worse than Bay…..Josh,u’re right by the way,but we gotta keep the fun of it somehow,hehe.
No, he is better than Guy Ritchie.
Guy fckng Ritchie…. Try watching RockanRolla.
Nathan W
Ed Wood was notoriously bad, but at least he had a vision, and his films were quirky. Bay’s films have been possibly some of the worst films I have ever seen, certainly the worst successful films (if you measure success by the box office).