CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › briskhound2 › Posts

Posts by briskhound2

770 posts shown.

Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
David Price5 said:Honestly, anyone can be a producer these days. Half the actors in Hollywood have their own production companies. We just have to accept that most directors make movies they actually enjoy, in their own style. For Bay, this project is likely just as significant as Match Point was for Woody Allen. He doesn't just churn out movies for no reason. He lands one blockbuster every two years. Is that really considered too many? :-)

I plan to put together an analysis one day to see exactly how many genuine blockbusters are produced annually...

Honestly, if you see Bay's name on the credits, you already know exactly what decade we're living in...🤣
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
David Price5 said:Directors rarely change their ways. People tend to stick to their specific genre and style. It's true that many talented filmmakers started with tiny budgets before moving up to the big leagues, but they just don't go back. I highly doubt Samuel L. Jackson will start making movies on a $1–$2 million budget again..

I could bet that Bay would find it much easier to secure $200 million from producers by simply promising a movie full of robots and explosions than finding $10 million for a small drama. To be honest, they might even turn him down for the smaller stuff..

Look, Bay's mostly doing those 15-20 million dollar flicks right now, mainly just producing, but still... Even back when we were talking about Tony Scott, he was a total Jerry Bruckheimer's protégé who was used to massive budgets, yet he eventually pivoted to shoot "True Romance" for basically peanuts—he kind of bounces between commercial stuff and indie projects (both directing and producing), which is something Bay hasn't quite mastered yet, though he's slowly drifting into that territory. I think I read somewhere that he’s actually willing to walk away from Transformers 3 because he's just totally fed up with it all. Now, Jackson pulled off a miracle with The Lord of the Rings—hats off to him—but "King Kong" already showed signs of having much bigger ambitions than actual substance. Then you've got Sam Raimi, who jumped from trash horror straight to Spider-Man, and squeezed in "The Gift" and Simple Plan in between... so yeah, transitions happen, but it's a hell of a lot harder when you built your reputation on relatively hollow blockbusters and then try to pivot to making something... "quality." Even Lynch (since I'm bringing him up) got burned once by high production values and moved toward more personal films after he already had the name and the critical acclaim. Who knows how the story would've ended if "Dean" had actually become a hit along the lines of Star Wars...
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
Chloe Nguyen said:Ugh, I don't think he's quite that terrible.

No one is ever going to hand Uwe Boll over $100 million to make a movie, I suspect. However, studios will hand that kind of money to Michael Bay without even blinking. Uwe Boll has been making his own little features for ages now; they usually cost about twenty million apiece, and they almost never recoup their costs. It seems to me that Uwe Boll simply lacks any semblance of actual talent.

Now, Michael Bay possesses a very specific type of talent, if you could call it that. It's a knack for those silly, high-octane action flicks. Boll’s movies aren't even that—they're just plain unwatchable. I believe Jerry Bruckheimer recognized that particular Michael Bay talent, handed him $20 million to direct Bad Boys, and walked away with a mountain of cash. For every subsequent project, his budget grew, and so did his profits.

I would argue that while Michael Bay isn't an artist in any traditional sense, he is certainly a highly skilled craftsman.

Look, Bay has his strengths, sure, but I wouldn't quite label him just a "craftsman"... When he's handling independent projects—which, so far, has mostly been in a producer role—he shows a real knack for turning out stuff that actually holds up quality-wise (like that remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre)... And while his movies are definitely visual spectacles, he always tries to sneak a bit of his own DNA into those big, flashy frames. The first thing that jumps out at me is his use of the "rotating shot"—he can take a totally static scene and inject some actual life into it... Sadly, though, his creative spark still seems stuck on the surface level, purely visual. Maybe if he stepped away from the massive producers and those bloated Hollywood budgets for a bit...
Best movies from America since 1990? in Movies ·
warrior time, hands down. You can totally see the influence of Walter Hill and southern comfort dripping all over it, but honestly, it’s just a great, stripped-down piece of work built on two killer actors and a solid enough plot...
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
Anthony Smith3 said:Look, man... you didn't just jump at the chance to quote me by bringing up "Lynch's visuality and intellectual strangeness", you completely missed the point of what I said. I don't know... maybe it was too complicated for you to grasp.🤷
Since when? There was absolutely NO 🤷comparison😕 happening here. I honestly have no clue where on earth you saw MY comparison between Bay and Lynch.
Here... I'll quote my own text again just to be clear...
Whatever people think of him, the guy knows how to make a visually striking and cool movie... he knows how to design great action shots, cool frames, and slick sequences far better than 80% of blockbuster directors. So, strictly in terms of action, his movies are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable "style," he stands out. Now... some people dig that... some don't... just like some people enjoy having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather just slap him in the face for it...


So... let me simplify this for you and a few others...the bottom line is, some people like Bay, and some people like Lynch..👍 Lynch was only brought into this as an example of how different people appreciate different things. What offended you (and a few others) was simply me saying that Lynch messes with people's heads with his films... but hey, that's my take on Lynch, and I'm allowed to have it, just like you have yours on Bay. Look... I'm not some deep intellectual looking down on everyone else, judging their trash tastes or acting like I "understand Lynch's code."
It’s honestly exhausting seeing people beat their chests and act like they're film experts just because they've watched Lynch, Godard, Van Saint, Bergman, and other world-renowned auteurs, thinking that automatically makes them literate in cinema. That doesn't give anyone the right to look down on others or lecture them. If anything, it's the opposite.☕

Seconded. Since my previous response was nuked for being a dead end, maybe his baseless insults toward me should be wiped or handled differently...😉

If he were still around, Ante Peterlić would definitely have dedicated one of his exhaustive critiques to Michael Bay. I mean, once you start putting David Lynch in the same breath as Bay...you really ought to check if someone actually understands basic cinema or has any sense of taste before they even think about logging onto this forum. Otherwise, just any random idiot can ramble on about whatever they want.

Anyway, enough about that...

Seconded. Also, regarding Harlin's "newer" stuff... we should mention Driven, one of the biggest flops of the last decade.

Look... you just won't admit it because of your personal vendetta against Bay... end of story. But if you actually looked at this objectively, you'd see The Rock was a hit with both critics and audiences... even more so than Die Hard 2. Basically... the movie has a pretty solid reputation...

Truth be told👍 just thinking back to how much I was banking on that movie (Harlin and Stallone teaming up again—how bad could it actually be?) only to end up with maybe a few decent scenes that barely justify watching the thing twice.

Since we're talking Die Hard with a Vengeance and Cliffhanger, Harlin usually stuck to that standard action movie blueprint where the terrorists or villains are just pure evil, soulless, killing everyone without a second thought... whereas Bay, in his work on Mountain, actually tries to give them some actual emotion (someone once claimed his movies lack heart—truth be told, just rewatch The Rock to see that they aren't empty, though...) which breaks away from the established rules by actually fleshing out why characters do what they do. At least he tried to. The issue is really more about how Jerry Bruckheimer works—and let's be real, he was the big boss back then, so Bay had zero influence since it was only his second gig—focusing more on spectacle than substance, so that emotional depth just couldn't fully take root. You only have to look at the characters played by Qualen and Hummel (John Lithgow in Cliffhanger and Ed Harris in Mountain—both incredible actors, so there's no mistaking that) and it becomes obvious that even in Harlin's best moments, he’s leaning heavily on tired clichés... while Bay at least attempted to tap into a lead actor's potential by giving them some breathing room. It's a similar vibe with Tony Scott working with Gene Hackman. After that, he basically threw in the towel and pivoted toward pure spectacle, which is pretty much what anyone would do if they had Bruckheimer producing their films. That's why I feel like Bay hasn't truly shown his full range as a director yet... but even though his name is a brand itself, as Anthony Smith3 mentioned, the names Spielberg and Bruckheimer carry way more weight, and honestly, looking at his filmography, that seems to be what's holding him back career-wise.
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:@briskhound2

Harlin is just burnt out—plain and simple. But let’s be real: Bay doesn't have anything in his filmography that even comes close to "Die Hard 2," "Cliffhanger," or heaven forbid, "Cutthroat Island" and "Deep Blue Sea."

As for Scott's "Last Boy Scout" and "True Romance"? Bay can only dream.

I have no idea how I managed to overlook that... honestly, those movies are classics. That's why I keep saying Scott's been in the game much longer—he had hits like Top Gun, Day of Thunder, and Lethal Weapon 2 under his belt way before those specific titles, which, let's be real, are leagues better than the others mentioned. It’d be pretty wild to see what Bay could actually pull off if he wasn't stuck making these massive, over-the-top projects... and if, of course, he had access to top-tier writers like Tarantino or Blacko that Scott used to work with...
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
Hey everyone, looks like this thread is moving at lightning speed 😁 So, let's pivot away from Lynch for a second and finally make a comparison with someone actually in the same ballpark. Renny Harlin. Have you guys actually sat through his recent stuff? The Convent is a massive teen-targeted flop—just a directionless, aimless mess that’s a total slog. His latest, 12 Rounds, is a slight step up, but honestly, it’s just a blatant rip-off of Die Hard 3... everything from the plot beats to specific sequences and even the dialogue is just copied. A movie that could have been a decent, high-octane action flick ended up being... well, we've seen much better versions of this ages ago. Look, comparing Bay and Harlin... it's a zero for him. Harlin burned through all his credit a long time ago with Die Hard 2—which is basically the ceiling for the action genre—and Cliffhanger, a movie that owes its popularity almost entirely to visual spectacle since there isn't much acting depth to speak of. Tony Scott does his best work under Jerry Bruckheimer's wing; once he wanders outside those waters, he starts churning out some pretty unwatchable garbage (The Fan, Domina), so comparing Bay and Scott isn't out of line, but they both basically make the same movies, except Scott's been in the game longer. If you compare 12 Rounds to The Rock, it becomes immediately obvious that Bay actually knows his craft... it's an action rollercoaster that never feels boring, exhausting, or like a cheap imitation, all while being a visual feast with a story that's clear and easy to follow. I mean, what else does a solid action movie really need to offer?
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
Kate Torres said:Care to explain that? Just because someone makes crowd-pleasers that rake in massive profits doesn't make them a good director. Let's actually establish some criteria before we start praising every random movie as a masterpiece. 🙄

That's exactly the point—people aren't even looking for anything special.

You really should’ve quoted the whole sentence there. Look, the argument is that he’s a great director because he knows how to move product—purely from a commercial standpoint—even if the stuff itself isn't exactly groundbreaking. That just proves he's a killer salesman, especially considering he only has one real flop under his belt. He just gives the audience exactly what they're asking for. And wait, let me get this straight... since when is being a good director defined by *not* making movies people enjoy? Just look at how many films are strategically released during Oscar season or lean into those "socially conscious" or "educational" themes. Hollywood is basically a factory where the goal is to sell a product, and honestly, watching a Michael Bay, Simon West, or Dominic Senna movie is an experience in itself—which, as northerncrane4 mentioned, is a matter of personal vision. Personally, I think Bay is a powerhouse; he managed to build a massive, recognizable brand with just a handful of films, which is no small feat given how many directors out there are totally forgettable. Maybe to us, he’s just some guy, but he’s being produced by Steven Spielberg now. There isn't much difference between Armageddon (which he did for Jerry Bruckheimer) and Transformers (for Spielberg), so... the talent is definitely there... at least when it comes to the commercial side of things. And let's not even get into the technical aspects of filmmaking, because you actually have to know how to pull off movies like that.
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:I don't see why you assume those who hated it are the same people who actually enjoyed the ride. Even on this thread, you have people who view Michael Bay as the gold standard for action, and others who can't stand him. Are you suggesting everyone here claiming Michael Bay is a bad director is secretly enjoying his movies?

Personally, I've sat through three of his films—"The Rock", "Con Air", and "Armageddon". Each one was an almost unbearable slog to watch (maybe "Con Air" earns a passing grade if I squint hard enough and grimace)—but then I realized they were all directed by the same guy. Since then, I haven't been interested in seeing a single Michael Bay movie, nor will I ever be.

Actually, "Con Air" was directed by Simon West. Look, let's be real—Bay makes movies for the American market, not for Europe or anywhere else... he's making them for the USA. And when one of his films pulls in 250 million bucks, you know a massive amount of people showed up to see it. I remember reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes a long time ago (surprisingly, they were slightly positive) where some critic basically said he had to actually go watch the movie just so he could have something to trash. I mean, where's the logic in that? For instance, I couldn't care less about Harry Potter or Twilight, so I didn't go see them and I definitely don't plan to—not that I'd bother writing anything bad about them either. If it's a marketing thing, even the trailers don't explicitly say you *have* to see his movies, which means there's clearly something there. Another thing I read back during the Armageddon era is that he plays on the audience's emotions (which feels a bit forced, but okay) and we end up right back at what bugs everyone about his work. The pathos, the extreme Americanization, the heroism, the "God and Country" stuff... it's all pretty manipulative because none of that is in the trailers. It's all tucked away in the final package, unlike some other directors who lead with that stuff to bait you. Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at the trailer for Transformers 2. That thing is a total trip, a logistical nightmare to film—I'll give him credit for that even over James Cameron—and it all boils down to the effects, the explosions, the flashy visuals... but you already know it's going to be big and epic (even if you don't know what it's actually about). Bay knows that's what people expect. You sit down, watch the movie, the plot drags you toward some climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, dropping to their knees—and I'm practically thrilled because he delivered exactly what I wanted to see and hit me right in the feels with that scene. Pathetic, sure. But "bad"... well, that's just a matter of taste. By that metric, he's a good director (he'd probably kill it in a smaller production too, just look at the horror remakes he produces) because he knows how to please the crowd without doing anything particularly special. Of course, that's just my take, since he's the kind of director you either love or hate. Just like his movies.
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:😕 I still don't follow the logic here. Is the argument that Michael Bay manipulates audiences simply because he makes exactly what they want—high-octane action chases with zero soul and minimal substance?

Look, maybe "manipulation" isn't the perfect word, but what I'm getting at is that he delivers exactly what everyone secretly craves but won't admit out loud... and then he puts them in this position where they end up respecting him anyway—at least based on the box office numbers. I'm not quite sure how else to put it when a guy gets massive professional validation through pure profitability while the critics are absolutely tearing him apart from every angle. He basically corners the audience... they're having a blast while the movie is playing, but then they turn around and trash it later even though the results prove they actually loved it. How else do you describe that? It’s like he manipulates people so effectively that he doesn't even have to defend himself—the numbers are right there in black and white. I mean, we're doing the same thing right now, calling his movies brainless and soulless, yet when Transformers 2 rolls around, most of the people spitting venom today will be perfectly fine buying a ticket... acting like they aren't watching something totally ridiculous. He targets a specific demographic—he's not exactly going to pivot and make something different for them—so they just show up. Isn't that a pretty massive achievement that very few people pull off? And he does it all without ever having to say a single word in his own defense. How else can you call that but audience manipulation? Or maybe it's just tapping into the subconscious desires of a certain crowd? I think I've explained it as best as I can, if that makes sense 😁
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:I don't follow this logic—calling it "playing" with the audience because he gives them what they want? That's just meeting audience demand, not manipulation. 😕

It’s not really "playing" with them... that would be... well, pointless, since Michael Bay doesn't make those kinds of movies. But he definitely manipulates them in a way that's totally obvious—hardly anyone respects him as an "auteur," yet his films are almost always massive hits because everyone knows exactly what they're getting, and they love watching it. I'd call it manipulation (maybe not the perfect word, but, you know...) because if he were doing it specifically to please them, that would be connecting. This feels more like a symbiosis... nobody admits to anything openly, but the box office numbers speak for themselves—those types of scenes clearly work. The day he actually starts playing with the audience, that'll be... something else entirely.
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
David Price5 said:It doesn't really matter if the character lacks depth. In this genre, we don't demand the same qualities we look for in other types of films. I think we all realize that when working with Michael Bay, the actors aren't exactly gunning for an Oscar for Best Actor or Original Screenplay. You have to understand that Bay could craft an entire feature without a single line of dialogue—just pure action and explosions—and it could technically be considered an experimental masterpiece. But let's be honest: calling something a masterpiece feels much more earned when you're talking about *The Godfather*.

Just because an action movie is packed with stunts and flashy scenes doesn't mean it's actually a good film. I remember seeing a similar trend back when I was first getting into cinema; many critics who praised the original film absolutely trashed this sequel. We have to maintain certain standards.

Personally, I don't think The Rock even comes close to Die Hard on any level. To be honest, I watched The Rock a while back and have been trying my best to forget the experience ever happened.I simply cannot shake the memory of that climax where Nicolas Cage plunges the injection into his heart and falls to his knees, arms outstretched toward the heavens.I need to wait until I have all the data before I can provide a truly meaningful comparative analysis.

That’s exactly why people watch Michael Bay movies. You forgot that those hunters flew right over him during that scene, too. I can't quite remember if there was an explosion going off right behind him, though. Hmm.

Americans tune in because those sequences—like that badass explosion right behind Nicolas Cage, obviously—are tailor-made for them. It’s actually pretty brilliant how Bay manipulates the audience by just feeding them exactly what they want: his heroes front and center in these heart-pounding, epic moments where the camera just circles around them. If it isn't pure emotion (which it usually is), then it’s either pure showmanship or just a way to punch up the movie's pivot—like in both Bad Boys films—right when the finale kicks off. To be fair, I’d give him the edge over Emerich... since Emerich always feels the need to shove in these long, overly dramatic monologues about—for God, country, and the people—before finally wrapping things up. Bay does it through cinematography, which borders on actual experimentation because—and I mean only occasionally—he doesn't feel the need to hold the viewer's hand, actually pulling you into the action. That's aside from the fact that everything is already totally predictable...
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:In my view, Michael Bay’s biggest failure as a director—aside from his weak scripts, cookie-cutter characters, and total obsession with VFX—is his lack of visual clarity. It's most obvious in Armageddon; during the peak action sequences, you can't tell who is where, who is going where, or what is actually happening to whom.

Comparing him to Die Hard is beyond blasphemous—honestly.

I don't really see the issue. I mean, this movie checks all the boxes for those films that riff on the "Die Hard" formula—think Sputnik 57 or Under Siege—you've got terrorists seizing a confined location, hostages everywhere, and a lone wolf protector working his way through them one by one... if anyone else had directed it, it would have just been "Die Hard at Alcatraz," plain and simple. But when you actually sit down and watch it, it stands perfectly fine on its own without needing to be tethered to those other flicks. Sure, Bay lost his way a bit later on with stuff like Armageddon and Transformers, but even then, he managed to carve out this specific, frantic visual style that sets him apart from the sea of directors doing the same thing (looking at you, Dominic Senna and Tony Scott)... it’s high-octane, especially in Armageddon, but you always know it's a Bay film. Not to mention the fact that he’s only had one real flop in his entire career, but that's a whole different conversation... 😁
Is Michael Bay actually a bad director? in Movies ·
The Rock is basically in a league of his own when it comes to action flicks. Looking back at 12 Rounds, it really hits home just how much of a talent > actually is at this stuff... the way he handles scene clarity and keeps the pacing tight without any unnecessary filler is impressive. He managed to take what was essentially just more material for a "die with dignity" style franchise and turn it into something that still holds up today—it’s got a certain charm and energy that hasn't faded one bit.
Zachary Turner6 said:from the director/writer Richard Kelly😁

"R." Kelly: image

on topic: Donnie Darko is a good movie, incredible soundtrack, killer atmosphere, great soundtrack, an interesting (if slightly emo) story, and a fantastic soundtrack😁

I don't plan on watching anything else—unless, of course, we get a new night trash sequel of actual good films☕ honestly, you just can't repeat that

I guess I went a little gray there—for a second, I actually thought some rapper with the same name was tied to the movie😁 on topic, I’ll give it a shot... though, honestly, once I remember how much people absolutely tore the original to pieces, maybe I should just wait a few years until someone decides the sequel is a masterpiece so I can be on the right side of history... if it actually turns out to be any good. One of these days...🤣
Who is the deadliest operative? in Movies ·
Frank Moore4 said:Speaking of the Ryanverse, we should probably talk about the upcoming production for Without Remorse—the one centered on John Clark. You had Willem Dafoe playing him in Clear and Present Danger, and then Liev Schreiber stepped in for the Sum of All Fears movie. It’s slated for 2011, and word is Brandon Routh is being tapped to take over the role this time around.

Man, I completely blanked on that... Honestly, having Liev Schreiber reprise the role would have been a total dream come true. But this move toward Brandon Routh (wasn't Joaquin Phoenix also in the mix at one point?) feels a bit forced to me because... well, he just doesn't quite have that "look" for a hitman like John Clark. In the books, Clark has so much more depth than what we see on screen, which is honestly a tragedy. You really reminded me that in the book version of Clear and Present Danger, Clark is actually the main engine driving everything, not Ryan—who basically just shows up at the very end. Dafoe could have carried an entire movie on his back without breaking a sweat. Still, I’d give the edge to Schreiber... he’s younger (even if they're already messing with the book adaptations) and just has that charisma. He totally outshone Bond Craig in Defiance without even trying...
Who is the deadliest operative? in Movies ·
Frank Moore4 said:Yeah, you could totally call Ryan a "reluctant operative." 😁 BTW, speaking of a potential new Jack Ryan flick, I actually think Chris Pin—you know, the new Kirk—would be a solid fit for the role.

I haven't really been keeping up with the news on the new Ryan movies lately, so if you've got the scoop, which version of Ryan are we talking about here? There’s that new series following the adventures of Jack Ryan Jr.—the son of the original Jack (the "Sabretooth" books were even released by Algorithm)—and honestly, Pin could pull that off quite well... he's got those similarities with the old Harrison, who, according to what FOX "news" was reporting, had been approached about continuing the franchise (probably thanks to the success of Indy 4). Junior is more of an operative similar to Bryan Mills (at least in the books), but there's still that emphasis on realism, even if Americans can apparently do anything—as expected...😁
Who is the deadliest operative? in Movies ·
Frank Moore4 said:I was actually debating whether to throw Jack Ryan into the mix, but since he's basically just a CIA analyst who somehow ends up out in the field, I decided to leave him out—kind of like how I skipped MacGyver, Harry Tasker from True Lie, and all that... 😁 I mean, I could've easily tossed Rambo in there too 😁 , but if I included everyone, this list would be freaking endless 😁, so I just stuck with these six "iconic" types. 😁

Yeah, fair point... it always slips my mind that he's technically a data guy who just happens to stumble into combat situations. A total "accidental operative" 😁.
Who is the deadliest operative? in Movies ·
So, what happened to Jack Ryan? He’s missing from the list... I mean, first he swipes Red October, then he goes chasing down some IRA terrorists, saves Marines, tears through a drug cartel, and somehow survives a nuclear blast right in the middle of an American suburb. Not to mention the fact that his story actually has a tiny bit of realism baked in...
Chasing the ghosts of forgotten legends in Movies ·
David Price5 said:Every production features its own set of reliable actors. They might not always be household names, but they bring real weight to the screen. Take *Damages*, for instance—you have Glen Close and Rose Byrne delivering incredible performances. Then there's *Deadwood*, which features Ian McShane, who is essentially a TV legend, alongside Timothy Olyphant. Just take a look at those casts; the talent is undeniable. John AdamsTake a look at how many Oscar winners or nominees we have in this group. It’s quite impressive!

That’s exactly what I’m getting at—none of those guys really made a massive splash beforehand (well, Glenn Close obviously, and maybe Jenna Davis has her own series if I remember correctly)... but before that? Not really. This *John Adams* thing looks pretty interesting though, and I've always had a soft spot for David Morse, so I'll probably end up catching that one eventually. As for *Deadwood*... yeah, Ian McShane is definitely a TV staple, but his work in *Lovejoy* was actually genius back in the day. And Olyphant... being from the younger crowd, I find him interesting, but he still needs to really nail a major film to prove himself. Now, someone like Gary Sinise—that guy is a powerhouse, and the man's career is basically everything people dream of—but that stint on the third season of *CSI*... wasn't really necessary. He’s one of the few who actually admitted the gig worked because he could stay close to his family (and since the show seems to run forever, he's set for a while), so I guess his choice makes sense...