Is Michael Bay actually a bad director?

northerncrane4 said: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.

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.

LOL... straight to the warnings when you don't get it... nice work.👍 Feel free to hand one out to yourself while you're at it.😉

I brought up Lynch to show how what he does best works for some people, just like how what Bay does best works for others in a totally different way. That was my point. But then you immediately latched onto Lynch and started explaining why he's good, what you see in his films, why they're masterpieces, etc. Anyway... let's just drop it.😉

There are plenty of action movies that offer more! And who said we were talking about Bay's action movies? You've got Leon, Aliens, Die Hard, and tons of others where you actually get that "more." As for the clarity thing... I don't follow. What specifically is "unclear" to you?😕 Fine, if Rock and Armageddon were that "unclear" to you, definitely stay away from Transformers or Island (though I doubt that'll be an issue).😉

If he were still with us, Ante Peterlić would have undoubtedly dedicated one of his exhaustive essays to Michael Bay. It seems we have reached a point where people are actually attempting to place David Lynch in the same conversation as Bay... frankly, before anyone even thinks about logging onto this forum, they ought to verify their basic understanding of the seventh art and whether they possess even a shred of decent cinematic taste. Otherwise, any random amateur can just waltz in here and ramble on about whatever nonsense they please.

Michael Bay is really just a technician—a guy who takes the massive pile of cash he gets for every project and turns it into some "boom, crash, bang" spectacle, and that's basically it... He’s decent enough if you have a taste for that typical Hollywood garbage... otherwise, the stuff he makes is total trash, much like a lot of the junk coming out of Los Angeles lately.

Anthony Smith3 said:LOL... straight to the warnings when you don't get it... nice work.👍 Feel free to hand one out to yourself while you're at it.😉

I brought up Lynch to show how what he does best works for some people, just like how what Bay does best works for others in a totally different way. That was my point. But then you immediately latched onto Lynch and started explaining why he's good, what you see in his films, why they're masterpieces, etc. Anyway... let's just drop it.😉

There are plenty of action movies that offer more! And who said we were talking about Bay's action movies? You've got Leon, Aliens, Die Hard, and tons of others where you actually get that "more." As for the clarity thing... I don't follow. What specifically is "unclear" to you?😕 Fine, if Rock and Armageddon were that "unclear" to you, definitely stay away from Transformers or Island (though I doubt that'll be an issue).😉

I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

I think Millius once compared a director to a storyteller sitting by a campfire. If you used that same logic for Michael Bay, he’d probably be this hyperactive storyteller with a massive speech impediment, dealing with ADHD and maybe some Tourette symptoms too. It’s honestly kind of wild to me that anyone actually finds it entertaining to watch stories told in such a... I don't know, dyslexic and seizure-inducing way. It feels a lot more "streamlined," "visually striking," or "logistically impressive" to just go bungee jumping with a frayed elastic cord while you've got a kitchen fork stuck in your eye.

Bryan Singer and Zack Snyder are both major players competing with Michael Bay.
Unfortunately for him, either one could easily outshine him and his nonsensical 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?

Bay isn't the villain here, he's just a symptom...

Let’s be real, nowadays "blockbusters" are basically just glorified B-movies with at least a $100 million budget...

Bay is just one tiny cog in this massive machine...

@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.

Tony Scott is a decent mainstream director, but I’ll never forgive him for Top Gun. He managed to make something more mindless than all of Michael Bay's movies combined.

As for Last Boy Scout, 🙏 🙏

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...

wiredbison82 said:If he were still with us, Ante Peterlić would have undoubtedly dedicated one of his exhaustive essays to Michael Bay. It seems we have reached a point where people are actually attempting to place David Lynch in the same conversation as Bay... frankly, before anyone even thinks about logging onto this forum, they ought to verify their basic understanding of the seventh art and whether they possess even a shred of decent cinematic taste. Otherwise, any random amateur can just waltz in here and ramble on about whatever nonsense they please.

This is basically like arguing over whether pizza tastes better with pepperoni and peppers or just plain cheese. And then some hipster rolls in and starts lecturing everyone about how pot roast is the greatest meal ever because it has "heritage," it takes effort to make, and it’s a "real" meal instead of just a carb-heavy pizza bomb.

Well, newsflash: I paid for my pizza because I don't feel like eating pot roast! Anyone can make a movie. Just because you guys have this fancy distinction between "cinema" and "movies" and try to shove your personal preferences down our throats as objective truth doesn't make it so...

Olivia Evans8 said:This is basically like arguing over whether pizza tastes better with pepperoni and peppers or just plain cheese. And then some hipster rolls in and starts lecturing everyone about how pot roast is the greatest meal ever because it has "heritage," it takes effort to make, and it’s a "real" meal instead of just a carb-heavy pizza bomb.

Well, newsflash: I paid for my pizza because I don't feel like eating pot roast! Anyone can make a movie. Just because you guys have this fancy distinction between "cinema" and "movies" and try to shove your personal preferences down our throats as objective truth doesn't make it so...

Beef bourguignon isn't "better" than pizza because of history or how much work went into it; it's better because it tastes a hundred times better, for crying out loud.

northerncrane4 said:I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

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...

briskhound2 said: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?

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

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.

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...

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...

Yes—that’s exactly what it is: a comparison based purely on the level of audience satisfaction. 🙄 Regardless of what you say—the fact remains—I get why Michael Bay appeals to certain audiences, whereas you simply can't grasp why Lynch is actually a significant director; you seem to reject the idea that it will ever click for you.

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.

northerncrane4 said:Yes—that’s exactly what it is: a comparison based purely on the level of audience satisfaction. 🙄 Regardless of what you say—the fact remains—I get why Michael Bay appeals to certain audiences, whereas you simply can't grasp why Lynch is actually a significant director; you seem to reject the idea that it will ever click for you.

LOL🤣 Look, from what I know, a comparison happens when you directly weigh one thing against another (like Harlin vs. Bay... or Scott vs. Bay)... which isn't even what happened here... but whatever, have it your way.👍

I get why you and a lot of others worship Lynch, but the reasons people love him and call him a "significant" director don't mean anything to me when it comes to film style and auteur expression. To you, he's a master; to me, he's just some guy with a weird psyche who feels the need to be different and mess with people's heads...

But hey... let's just stop putting Lynch on a pedestal, man...

ruggedjackal46 said:Beef bourguignon isn't "better" than pizza because of history or how much work went into it; it's better because it tastes a hundred times better, for crying out loud.

O rly? I bet I could find plenty of people who wouldn't touch a pot roast with a ten-foot pole. Look, the whole point is that subjective doesn't mean objective...

Olivia Evans8 said:O rly? I bet I could find plenty of people who wouldn't touch a pot roast with a ten-foot pole. Look, the whole point is that subjective doesn't mean objective...

And while you're at it, you can probably find folks who think the Earth is flat, too.

We kicked things off by unfairly dragging Michael Bay into this, throwing an innocent and entirely irrelevant Lynch into the mix as well; from where I'm sitting, we've drifted from the point and ended up debating nothing more than local diner food, practically one step away from arguing over breakfast menus.
I anticipate someone clever will soon chime in with the argument that a Ford actually produces superior vehicles compared to a Mercedes-Benz because, goodness knows, everyone has different tastes and you can't argue with preference...
I also expect some "constructive" debate regarding Michael Dudikoff vs. Harvey Keitel, where there will undoubtedly be those willing to bet their lives that the former is a subtly better actor than the latter.