Is Michael Bay actually a bad director?

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.

Michael Bay is... well, let's just say he's harmless... if that's even the right way to put it.

The man simply churns out his loud, mindless blockbusters packed with endless explosions and an excessive amount of American flags, and somehow, it actually works for him. As long as he sticks to that specific formula and doesn't try anything else, I suppose I won't have any issues with his work.

However, once he starts under the delusion that he’s capable of something more profound and decides to ruin a meaningful franchise—much like McG did—that's when I might actually find myself annoyed.

briskhound2 said: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.

There you have it. 🙂 Exactly the kind of thing I might actually find tolerable.

briskhound2 said:Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at that Transformers 2 teaser. It’s pure adrenaline; a total logistical nightmare to pull off—I’ll give him credit for that, even over James Cameron. It all boils down to the effects and those "boom-crash" visuals, but you already know it's going to be something massive and epic (even if you don't know what exactly). Bay understands the hype, too. You sit there, the plot builds toward a climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, hitting their knees—and I’m practically thrilled because he delivered exactly the kind of movie I wanted to see. That scene hit me right where it counts.

You're right—it all comes down to personal taste. When he shoves a scene like that down my throat and tries to pass off pure banality as some kind of epic masterpiece, it’s unbearable. That's exactly why I don't watch his stuff anymore.

briskhound2 said: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.

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. 🙄

briskhound2 said: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.

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

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.

Of course, Bay isn't a bad director. He isn't an "auteur," nor does he show any inclination toward becoming one, but from a purely technical and craft-oriented standpoint, his films are products that definitely have a target market.
His movies are, admittedly, creatively hollow, yet within the realm of popcorn cinema, they are perfectly digestible and occasionally even quite entertaining.
To achieve that level of status in Hollywood—regardless of how laughable such a standing might be from an artistic perspective—you simply cannot be bad at what you do.

briskhound2 said: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.

Putting a signature on almost every single sentence...

wiredbison82 said:Of course, Bay isn't a bad director. He isn't an "auteur," nor does he show any inclination toward becoming one, but from a purely technical and craft-oriented standpoint, his films are products that definitely have a target market.
His movies are, admittedly, creatively hollow, yet within the realm of popcorn cinema, they are perfectly digestible and occasionally even quite entertaining.
To achieve that level of status in Hollywood—regardless of how laughable such a standing might be from an artistic perspective—you simply cannot be bad at what you do.

I can't agree with that at all... I actually think he's great when it comes to visual creativity. Obviously, he's not offering anything groundbreaking or revolutionary, but he really knows how to deliver a visually striking, creative experience (just look at that sequence in Pearl Harbor where they bomb the ships—that shot where the camera follows the falling bomb... the guy just kills it with those kinds of visual flourishes). To be fair, he's lost his touch a bit since Bad Boys 2, but whatever...

If you define creativity as catering to the tastes of the MTV Generation while layering in a bit of high-octane melodrama—all featuring two or three actors who graced the posters in every teenager's bedroom—then Bay's films are essentially the gold standard of creative expression.

wiredbison82 said:If you define creativity as catering to the tastes of the MTV Generation while layering in a bit of high-octane melodrama—all featuring two or three actors who graced the posters in every teenager's bedroom—then Bay's films are essentially the gold standard of creative expression.

I don't think you get my point at all... but whatever... doesn't matter...☕

Anthony Smith3 said:I don't think you get my point at all... but whatever... doesn't matter...☕

Give me a break. You actually had somewhat decent arguments when it came to Woo, but please, spare me any talk regarding Bay and his supposed creativity. I answered the question quite clearly by stating I don't consider him a bad director; as for discussing the brilliance of "Pearl Harbor," perhaps save that for a "Teen" forum.

wiredbison82 said:Give me a break. You actually had somewhat decent arguments when it came to Woo, but please, spare me any talk regarding Bay and his supposed creativity. I answered the question quite clearly by stating I don't consider him a bad director; as for discussing the brilliance of "Pearl Harbor," perhaps save that for a "Teen" forum.

Nah... your response wasn't interesting or meaningful... you just totally missed my point entirely.
Let me clarify things with some actual logic... since I don't know any other way to explain this. It’s a well-known fact that Bay "evolved" under the wing of Jerry Bruckheimer—the guy who basically defines loud, big-budget blockbusters. Over time, Bay found his own wings and became a massive Hollywood brand in his own right. When we talk about Bay, we're talking about summer blockbusters packed with action and CGI designed specifically to be visually stunning, loud, bombastic, and just plain cool. That’s exactly what sets him apart from his competition. Maybe Roland Emmerich can hold his own, but that's a whole different conversation.
For comparison, look at this year's blockbusters... Terminator Salvation or Wolverine... neither of those is visually impressive. Honestly, they aren't visually appealing at all, despite being incredibly expensive and loud (not to mention their other issues). Neither can touch a Bay film because neither MCG nor Gavin Hood simply have Bay's sense of spectacle and creativity when it comes to destruction and explosions. Regardless of what people think of him, the guy knows how to make a movie look cool. He knows how to frame an action sequence better than 80% of blockbuster directors out there. So, strictly looking at the action, his films are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable style, he stands out. Now, some people love it and some hate it... just like how some people love having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather punch him in the face for it...

Anthony Smith3 said:Nah... your response wasn't interesting or meaningful... you just totally missed my point entirely.
Let me clarify things with some actual logic... since I don't know any other way to explain this. It’s a well-known fact that Bay "evolved" under the wing of Jerry Bruckheimer—the guy who basically defines loud, big-budget blockbusters. Over time, Bay found his own wings and became a massive Hollywood brand in his own right. When we talk about Bay, we're talking about summer blockbusters packed with action and CGI designed specifically to be visually stunning, loud, bombastic, and just plain cool. That’s exactly what sets him apart from his competition. Maybe Roland Emmerich can hold his own, but that's a whole different conversation.
For comparison, look at this year's blockbusters... Terminator Salvation or Wolverine... neither of those is visually impressive. Honestly, they aren't visually appealing at all, despite being incredibly expensive and loud (not to mention their other issues). Neither can touch a Bay film because neither MCG nor Gavin Hood simply have Bay's sense of spectacle and creativity when it comes to destruction and explosions. Regardless of what people think of him, the guy knows how to make a movie look cool. He knows how to frame an action sequence better than 80% of blockbuster directors out there. So, strictly looking at the action, his films are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable style, he stands out. Now, some people love it and some hate it... just like how some people love having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather punch him in the face for it...

Hold on a second—are you seriously equating Bay's "visuals" and intellectual void with Lynch's visual style and intellectual depth?

Bay's visuals are just action-movie LARPing—zero substance. His directing skill is basically on par with a toddler who gets a picture book of a tiger and a pack of crayons, and then what does he do? He uses every single crayon just to color in the damn tiger. It's mindless. It’s an assault on the eyes and ears, not actual direction.

@Anthony Smith3

Honestly, David Lynch isn't trying to mess with anyone's head—everything he does is actually pretty straightforward. Just watch the movie and enjoy the ride --don't try to overanalyze what he put on screen. People who struggle to grasp things that aren't meant to be decoded just don't "get" Lynch (or Trier) and their messages; they end up feeling confused, thinking there's some hidden trick. But really, he just sees the world through a different lens than everyone else!
To truly understand Lynch, you only need to remember his line from TP: "owls are not what they seem" and that's pretty much it.......

northerncrane4 said:Hold on a second—are you seriously equating Bay's "visuals" and intellectual void with Lynch's visual style and intellectual depth?

Bay's visuals are just action-movie LARPing—zero substance. His directing skill is basically on par with a toddler who gets a picture book of a tiger and a pack of crayons, and then what does he do? He uses every single crayon just to color in the damn tiger. It's mindless. It’s an assault on the eyes and ears, not actual direction.

LOL... so you mean Lynch's deep, pseudo-intellectual mind-f***ing where he uses experimental psychoanalysis to present consciousness itself? Yeah... like I said... Lynch nails that, mad respect. And the best part? Audiences like you swallow it whole, thinking it's all so profound... just like audiences like me swallow Bay's "assault on the senses"... and hey, that's fine, that's how the world works. It's just a little pathetic that Lynch is treated like some grand visionary and his movies like masterpieces. But I get it—if a canned piece of crap in a museum counts as art... or some used urinal signed by a "famous artist"... why wouldn't Lynch count too? Personally, though... I'll take flashy kitsch any day if it's done right.😉

Nicholas Walker3 said:@Anthony Smith3

Honestly, David Lynch isn't trying to mess with anyone's head—everything he does is actually pretty straightforward. Just watch the movie and enjoy the ride --don't try to overanalyze what he put on screen. People who struggle to grasp things that aren't meant to be decoded just don't "get" Lynch (or Trier) and their messages; they end up feeling confused, thinking there's some hidden trick. But really, he just sees the world through a different lens than everyone else!
To truly understand Lynch, you only need to remember his line from TP: "owls are not what they seem" and that's pretty much it.......

See... I'd say that about Bay before Lynch... you just gotta vibe with the movie and leave it at that...

Anthony Smith3 said:LOL... so you mean Lynch's deep, pseudo-intellectual mind-f***ing where he uses experimental psychoanalysis to present consciousness itself? Yeah... like I said... Lynch nails that, mad respect. And the best part? Audiences like you swallow it whole, thinking it's all so profound... just like audiences like me swallow Bay's "assault on the senses"... and hey, that's fine, that's how the world works. It's just a little pathetic that Lynch is treated like some grand visionary and his movies like masterpieces. But I get it—if a canned piece of crap in a museum counts as art... or some used urinal signed by a "famous artist"... why wouldn't Lynch count too? Personally, though... I'll take flashy kitsch any day if it's done right.😉

See... I'd say that about Bay before Lynch... you just gotta vibe with the movie and leave it at that...

I’m honestly not even sure how to respond to that. I can only hope that one day things finally click for you—maybe then you'll be able to appreciate Lynch's work for what it actually is. Until then, enjoy your subjective shots of falling bombs.

northerncrane4 said:I’m honestly not even sure how to respond to that. I can only hope that one day things finally click for you—maybe then you'll be able to appreciate Lynch's work for what it actually is. Until then, enjoy your subjective shots of falling bombs.

And you’re out here watching movies with zero actual substance or logic.👍🙂

Anthony Smith3 said:And you’re out here watching movies with zero actual substance or logic.👍🙂

Look, kid—I find plenty of meaning and structure in Lynch's films, something that clearly escapes you. You admitted yourself that all you see in Bay's work is visual hype—which I agree with, but it's just not enough for me.

Besides, if we're talking about pure action visuals, Michael Bay can hold his own against guys like Renny Harlin or Tony Scott.

northerncrane4 said:Look, kid—I find plenty of meaning and structure in Lynch's films, something that clearly escapes you. You admitted yourself that all you see in Bay's work is visual hype—which I agree with, but it's just not enough for me.

Besides, if we're talking about pure action visuals, Michael Bay can hold his own against guys like Renny Harlin or Tony Scott.

Let's not veer off into an off-topic debate about Lynch...😉

That bolded part right there is exactly why this thread is such a mess. You and a few others feel like that visual rush isn't enough (which is just personal taste, even if it's a lame excuse to make)...but for me and some other people, it is. I don't ask for anything more from Bay personally...it's that simple. Either you dig watching dozens of explosions tear a city apart or you don't...but the fact is, Bay knows how to throw a top-tier "fiesta."

Now, Tony Scott is in a league of his own (personally one of my favorite directors). He had his ups and downs, and in his later years, he started experimenting with his style a bit, which I thought was great. But Harlin... I don't know. Maybe the Harlin from the 90s (though that's also when Bay was at his creative peak)...but not this modern version...not really (though I haven't seen "12 Rounds" yet). To be honest, even the "new" Bay doesn't wow me like he used to back in the 90s. For me, Transformers wasn't even half the blockbuster that Armageddon, The Rock, or Bad Boys were. Honestly...everything else is just so-so.

Anthony Smith3 said:Let's not veer off into an off-topic debate about Lynch...😉

That bolded part right there is exactly why this thread is such a mess. You and a few others feel like that visual rush isn't enough (which is just personal taste, even if it's a lame excuse to make)...but for me and some other people, it is. I don't ask for anything more from Bay personally...it's that simple. Either you dig watching dozens of explosions tear a city apart or you don't...but the fact is, Bay knows how to throw a top-tier "fiesta."

Now, Tony Scott is in a league of his own (personally one of my favorite directors). He had his ups and downs, and in his later years, he started experimenting with his style a bit, which I thought was great. But Harlin... I don't know. Maybe the Harlin from the 90s (though that's also when Bay was at his creative peak)...but not this modern version...not really (though I haven't seen "12 Rounds" yet). To be honest, even the "new" Bay doesn't wow me like he used to back in the 90s. For me, Transformers wasn't even half the blockbuster that Armageddon, The Rock, or Bad Boys were. Honestly...everything else is just so-so.

Look, you were the first one to bring up Lynch—completely out of context, by the way. What exactly are you looking for here? For me to hand you an off-topic penalty just because you mentioned him in your post? I don't get it.

Dragonrage said:This overweight individual hits on exactly why this topic is such a mess. You and a few others clearly need more visual flash—which is just a matter of personal taste, if you want to use that weak excuse—but for me and several others, we’re satisfied, and frankly, I'm not asking for anything more from Bay himself.

I don't expect anything specific from Bay personally. However, when it comes to the film itself—especially an action flick—my expectations are higher. I'm looking for much more clarity than what he’s actually capable of delivering—based on what I saw in Rock and Armageddon.