Posts by David Price5

wiredbison82 said:The way you emphasized "within his genre" is a perfect illustration of how you lack any real depth of opinion, especially regarding cinema. If we are playing by those rules, Michael Bay is superior to Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, and even Alfred Hitchcock, simply because Hitchcock was a genius within his own lane.
Within the confines of his genre, no one is more powerful than Michael Bay, and within that same narrow scope, no one is better than Michael Dudikoff, as they both represent the absolute peak of their respective categories.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

So why do we keep stressing that Michael Bay makes action blockbusters?

northerncrane4 said:In reality, we should all realize that the "masterpiece" label is reserved for films without such glaring flaws as those found in Michael Bay movies.

Unfortunately, I didn't forget. I actually wrote it out and then deleted it—felt like too much—thinking I might have misremembered or mixed it up with Con Air.

Nobody said all of his movies were masterpieces. For instance, I felt The Island had far too much action, Pearl Harbor was heavy on patriotism and sentimentality, and Bad Boys 2 just wasn't good.

northerncrane4 said:In reality, we should all realize that the "masterpiece" label is reserved for films without such glaring flaws as those found in Michael Bay movies.

Unfortunately, I didn't forget. I actually wrote it out and then deleted it—felt like too much—thinking I might have misremembered or mixed it up with Con Air.

You really made me think of Con Air; it has been ages since I watched that one. I always enjoy seeing Nicolas Cage with those wild hairstyles. Plus, I have to see O'Brien! :-)😁

Kate Torres said:You missed my point. I said his movies are good, but they aren't masterpieces. Like Nicholas Walker3 said, you can't call those mindless blockbusters masterpieces—the best you can call them is "good" movies.

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.

Nicholas Walker3 said:I haven't actually seen any of his work, I was just speaking generally—you can't really label something a masterpiece just because it made a ton of money or became popular...

And honestly, we could go on forever debating these genres and subgenres... I mean, what's the logic in saying Apocalypse isn't an action movie—despite all the explosions and effects—while calling T2 one (even though T2 has that whole family component, friendship, moral dilemmas, and political undertones)?!

Not at all. When we discuss those "masterpieces," we certainly don't look at earnings or popularity. Bay is respected specifically for his explosive, action-packed style. Making money is a separate matter entirely. Believe me, no film earns the title of a masterpiece just because of its revenue. Popularity is different; if a movie is truly great, we naturally expect it to be popular and hailed as a masterpiece.

Nicholas Walker3 said:I haven't actually seen any of his work, I was just speaking generally—you can't really label something a masterpiece just because it made a ton of money or became popular...

And honestly, we could go on forever debating these genres and subgenres... I mean, what's the logic in saying Apocalypse isn't an action movie—despite all the explosions and effects—while calling T2 one (even though T2 has that whole family component, friendship, moral dilemmas, and political undertones)?!

I don't categorize Apocalypse as an action film—despite the action—for the same reason I wouldn't call The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, or Platoon action movies. Those action sequences simply aren't the core essence of those films. They are anti-war movies. Of course, action movies can have excellent stories, like The Dark Knight. That serves as an added bonus. Such films are rare, but they do exist.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Nah, I disagree—if it’s just a mindless adventure like those movies I keep hearing about from Bay.....there are plenty of action films that truly deserve the title of masterpiece because they offer way more than just explosions......Dirty Harry, Apocalypse Now, French Connection, two towers, and stuff like that—aren't those all action movies?

Hmm. This implies his films haven't actually been seen, right?

None of the films mentioned qualify as pure action movies. I mean real, high-octane action like Face Off, True Lies, or Terminator 2...

And comparing him to Die Hard is honestly bordering on blasphemy.

Die Hard is the perfect example of smart action. It's true that some are action like Armageddon, but they belong to different subgenres. Still, one has to admit the sheer scale of Armageddon...

Kate Torres said:Look, I love sci-fi too, so that's why I liked it, but that isn't really an argument. I get your point, though. You should have just said his movies are good within their specific genre. People on this forum throw the term masterpiece around way too often for just any random movie.

It seems some people forget that masterpieces aren't limited to specific genres. If a film sets a high bar for its category and earns genuine respect and appreciation, then it truly deserves to be called a masterpiece.

Amy Fox4 said:Michael Bay is actually a great director... regardless of how much people love to trash him... I guess he's just your typical modern New Age filmmaker with a totally fresh style, which he really proved through his work on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and the new Friday the 13th, not to mention Transformers and stuff.

He served as the producer there. We should distinguish the director from the producer.

quietmaker44 said:I feel like people here are constantly blurring the line between show business and actual art.

If I were a producer sitting on a $100 million budget, obviously I’d hire Michael Bay; I wouldn't be calling up Woody Allen 😁

But honestly? I’d only drag myself to the premiere of a Bay film if I absolutely had to 😉 just to get it over with. I'd look at it as part of the job—spending a couple of hours in a theater instead of stuck behind a desk.
However, I’d much rather spend my time watching an Allen film.

They are just two completely different worlds.

And there's the solution. People tend to forget that film is an industry—a massive business that employs thousands upon thousands of people. Just think about which type of director puts more "bread on the table" for families: someone like Woody Allen or someone like Bay?

gentlebadger88 said:I wouldn't exactly call Waterworld a failure, though. It picked up some awards and had Oscar nods... As for Costner, if you ask me, he was at his absolute best in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, The Bodyguard, and The Untouchables (which is my favorite 😁 )

Well, someone is overlooking classics like A Perfect World (1993), Fandango (1985), JFK (1991), No Way Out (1987), and Thirteen Days (2000). I’ve been catching up on his recent work lately. He certainly isn't forgotten; he just makes solid, reliable movies. While they might not always reach that top-tier prestige level anymore, he's definitely still relevant.

War of the Roses, Mr. & Mrs. Smith :-D,forget Paris (1995),..

Think back to all those classic Vietnam War movies where everything ends with a helicopter swooping in to pick up the survivors... and suddenly, everything feels right again.

Oops, my mistake then! :-)

Peter Allen30 said:I can't really recall any specific clues or details right now... It’s been at least five or six years since I last watched it. To me, the whole thing just felt disjointed and pointless—nothing like the first one, which was actually great, tense, and kept me hooked. Then again, maybe I just didn't get it...

Maybe give it another watch. I don't quite understand the confusion here. A small group heads into the woods and things start going sideways. This mockumentary worked because it built such an intense atmosphere without relying on cheap jump scares or gore. It all rested on those three actors.

Peter Allen30 said:I watched it. Twice, even.
I kept trying to wrap my head around it, thinking maybe there was some deeper meaning or something hidden I just missed the first time... trying to find the point behind all those disconnected scenes...
But no. Nothing.

Honestly, what was there to overthink? They already explained what those symbols meant.

Anthony Smith3 said:No, absolutely not!🙂🙂

That one sequence alone makes a rewatch worth it. Honestly, I'd watch just that part on loop. It’s easily the most incredible motorcycle chase ever put to film.🙏

but it still feels a bit over the top...

hollowdrifter3 said:It has to be Chuck Norris. He isn't just an operative, he's the deadliest man alive.

The topic at hand is the field operative.

briskhound2 said: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...

If we are judging by those standards, then 95% of film actors are just average when you compare them to icons like Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, or Angelina Jolie.

Anthony Smith3 said:Are you saying... all in just one day?😁😁

No. I actually counted the total days per season. :-)

Jack is just on another level. Honestly, nobody else could pull off killing that many people in a single week...

briskhound2 said:Regarding the paycheck, I'd bet they're pretty much neck and neck, except TV gives you that steady, reliable check... plus, he was never really an A-list superstar pulling ten mil per movie to begin with. And all those shows you listed... most of them featured actors who already had established "movie star" careers before jumping into TV, people who were actually respected by critics and audiences alike. Some folks found fame later on, sure, but when it comes to Paxton and his series work, I'd say the creators definitely walked away with more profit than he did...

@Richard Wilson4 — You hit the nail on the head there, he’s such a charismatic guy who somehow just never quite landed a truly great film. The one exception for me has to be *The Rock*, mostly because he actually held his own against Ed Harris (even if he lost that round again)... probably one of the brighter spots in his filmography...

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!