The Transformers' Newest Trailer

[Andy_Alderslade]

I happen to like a bit of Blue-Sky, Flag-Waving, modern americana....and I dont think there's anyone out there that can nail that sort of stuff in a single composition better than Bay. I know this is gonna provoke groans all round but I see his stuff as 21st century Norman Rockwell painting. The man knows an iconic shot when he sees it.

 

oh and BTW, Pearl Harbor made $449 million worldwide...I'd LOVE a flop like that.

 

I don't really have any problem with beautifully composed patriotism - and American Cinema has a history of excellent patriotic films, some of which though now are politically incorrect are still no less brilliant - Look at John Ford's The Iron Horse.

 

But Bay also presents a slightly stupid, incomprehensible modern america, that perhaps is little bit worrying to someone like myself, for example why would NASA send insane oil drillers to save the earth?

 

Surely there are some highly skilled level headed, happily married oil drillers somewhere? At least Norman Rockwell would have ensured that - ;)

 

 

As far as I know that figure for Pearl Harbor is overoptimistic and the studio made no significant profit taking into account distribution and marketing costs, apparently the actors are still awaiting payment!

 

 

P.S. I'm going to see another Zombie movie this weekend, 28 weeks latter, it looks pretty good don't you think?

[Andy_Alderslade]

Um...you do know that Steven Speilburg is the executive producer of Transformers don't you?? That means this is his idea. Bay is just the director.

 

Yes i'm aware of the irony thank you.... ;)

 

 

...of course this is not the first time Speilberg has pimped his name as an executive.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Andy_Alderslade

[Alexander Joyce]

P.S. I'm going to see another Zombie movie this weekend, 28 weeks latter, it looks pretty good don't you think?

 

I was just watching the trailer for that again and it looks great. Hope it lives up to it's prequel. It was mostly shot on S16 wasn't it? Should be a feast for the eye.

I have to fly over to London to see it though. I almost fell off my chair when I read that they are not showing it here until September!!!

[Andy_Alderslade]

I almost fell off my chair when I read that they are not showing it here until September!!!

 

Now you know how it feels!

[Evan Winter]

I'm looking forward to Transformers. I'm looking forward to being entertained, to watching the impossible, to seeing things I would never see outside of a Bay film, to being whisked away on a rollercoaster ride. Yes, Bay shoots beautifully & yes Bay is a little frenetic in his cutting style but all you have to do is watch the Hummer rolling down the hillside in Bad Boys 2 to see that the man knows how to get the adrenaline pumping.

 

Bay doesn't, however, write the scripts. Wafer thin characters? Weak storyline? Only partial credit (or discredit) can be dropped off at Bay's door. Sure, a more 'literary' director might ask for more rewrites to plump up the characters and develop the storyline. They might even tone back the action and pace the entire piece more passively - they might also end up with Superman Returns (a film which only a relatively small box-office crowd and I seemed to enjoy).

 

Whereas, Michael Bay can manage an ultra-massive production machine, that is built upon the notion that it can win back its money in boxoffice dollars, and he can manage it well. Like Richard B said, it's hard to appreciate the insane amount of skill Bay exhibits unless you've helmed a project yourself. This doesn't mean one can't critique a film unless one has made a film - I'm very much against that school of thought. What this means is that it is really really hard to understand just how much Bay is doing and just how well he's doing it until you've tried.

 

Personally, I'm impressed by him as a filmmaker because I have experienced the chaos of pre, post, and regular production. I'm impressed by him as a viewer because most of the time I come out of his films with a smile on my face :) (excluding - The Island). :(

 

I enjoyed Bad Boys I & II, The Rock was a blast, Armageddon was an implausible visual feast, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in the film shocked me with its scope and verve.

 

The man is talented, this to me is undeniable. He can make films and he can make them well. He is not a motion picture philosopher, he is not a director who will illuminate aspects of the human condition. He is an expert craftsman who understands his clientele and who will deliver something that 9 times out of 10 will thrill them to the core while simultaneously satisfying his own desires towards artistry.

 

He is good precisely because he is like so many other Americans. He likes what they like, he is thrilled by what thrills them, and he can take that common sensibility of his and turn it into moving pictures!

 

He is a success by his own standards and at the end of the day, as anyone with a strong sense of self will tell you, those are the only ones that really matter.

[Alexander Joyce]

I'm looking forward to Transformers. I'm looking forward to being entertained, to watching the impossible, to seeing things I would never see outside of a Bay film, to being whisked away on a rollercoaster ride. Yes, Bay shoots beautifully & yes Bay is a little frenetic in his cutting style but all you have to do is watch the Hummer rolling down the hillside in Bad Boys 2 to see that the man knows how to get the adrenaline pumping.

 

That is if you like Hummers. I can't stand them :rolleyes:

No offense, but I can think of countless of directors who could direct this film and the result would probably not differ all too much. He might have been one of the pioneers of this style, but time has caught up with him.

 

Whereas, Michael Bay can manage an ultra-massive production machine, that is built upon the notion that it can win back its money in boxoffice dollars, and he can manage it well. Like Richard B said, it's hard to appreciate the insane amount of skill Bay exhibits unless you've helmed a project yourself.

This doesn't mean one can't critique a film unless one has made a film - I'm very much against that school of thought.

What this means is that it is really really hard to understand just how much Bay is doing and just how well he's doing it until you've tried.

 

Well that's good cause I'm pretty sure 90% of film critics have never even come close to a motion picture camera, held a boom pole or sat in an editing suite :D

Film, like any work of art is made to be critiqued. It's not all the hard work behind the film that is being critiqued, but the film itself and the politics that shine through(and in Michael Bay films they shine pretty bright).

It took Michelangelo 4 years just to paint the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, but even though one can admire his hard work one doesn't critique his work of art based on it.

Also i doubt Mr. Bay really carries these productions all alone. I have just as much or more admiration for someone who could handle a smaller indie production on a relatively modest budget without the support system of a $100 million production.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Michael Bay is a Hollywood heavy weight with some very big films under his belt, I don't think those making comments like this really have a body of work that can compare in any way.

 

I've gone a lot softer on my critique of other people's movies after actually going through the experience of actually making a feature film and not just reading a book about it. Once you go through it you realize first hand how difficult it is, and your respect for those that do it even half way good goes way up. (I even sat through all of "The Invisible" thinking, there are positives here, while the audience was falling asleep :-)

 

No flaming from me, - however i'm a little baffled by your argument.

 

According to what you are saying because I have not personaly directed a multi million film, I do not have the right to criticise someone who has despite the fact I have experienced the end product of their work.

 

Under that line of thought the whole concept of film criticsm is wrong, which it isn't - its an important part of getting people to see good and underexposed films.

 

That line of thought, Richard, would also mean that if your house started to crumble or subside you could not criticise the arcitect because you have not personaly experienced desiging a house. Nor could a judge sentance a surgeon who has displayed neglagence because that judge has themselves never performed surgery.

 

Also take the French critics of the 1950's they were very critical of their country's established filmmakers, then they went on to make films and revelotionise cinema with global significance. And the first person to do it Francois Truffaut, did that without the use of public money and not one of his 18 films made a financial loss. However they did not have films under their belts when they set about their critisms and agendas.

 

Also you seem to associate your own experience of making a feature, which as I understand was an under a $ million production as a reason to appreciate Michael Bay's work which is often in the region of $60 - $120 million when the realities of either of production are at opposite extremes.

 

Surelly your experience where you were unprotected by a lack of production staff and P.As. is actually harder in many respects, though perhaps not all.

 

And how does the fact that someone has helmed a mulit-million dollar production justify a claim that their work is any good - Brian Singer, Alfonso Curan, Christopher Nolan all helmed films with enourmous budgets with no-previous experence of such intimidating scale and managed to produce very decent, if slightly flawed blockbusters.

 

Of course these people sucseed in helming such productions, becuase they are supported and looked after by excelent line-producers and assistants - perhaps we should be hailing these people and singing their praises more.

 

Anyway appologies if my original comments regarding Bay were somewhat inflamatory - however he is not a member of this board nor are any of his colleagues, plus those comments are a genuine reaction to his films which I find both unexciting and tasteless - and I can enjoy Raiders of the Lost Ark as much as anyone else.

[Guest]

Naturally I was expecting a counter argument along the lines of, "I don't have to have made a 100 million dollar movie in order to say I don't like some one elses."

 

I think that is true to an extent. Every one has a right to not like the artistic work of another.

 

The only point I would add is:

 

"Industry people", like those of us on this board, should be held to a higher standard when it comes to criticism of other people's work. It gets a bit old when there are people who have never made any thing, or earn a living in the film business, ranting on about how much this particular Hollywood film stinks. I'm not saying you're in this group Andy.

 

I'm saying that if you claim to be a filmmaker or DOP, at least have some thing under your belt before you rip on the work of others who have completed projects in distribution. George Lucas made a rare outburst against Spiderman, called it "silly." Well he has the stature to say this, he's responsible for one of the biggest film franchises in history. He has a track record to back up his comments, most of us here don't.

 

The average joe public does not have to be held to this standard, they are simply consumers, and do not work in the industry. Most of us here do.

 

R,

[David Sweetman]

At least in a film like Saw, as terrible and sickening entertainment that it is, they are showing these humane beings as tortured creatures, there is nothing clinical or censored about it like a big hollywood movie presents.

 

A film like Dawn of the Dead is in fact presenting a reality that killing is fun, easy and non-explicit.

I read a very interesting article about this in a magazine called CineAction, it compared Natural Born Killers to True Lies. Apparently some politician referenced True Lies among names of good, family films, while he condemned Natural Born Killers as pointless depravity (and later admitted to having never seen either one.) The author showed how the explicit but unnoticed violence in True Lies is much more dangerous than that in Natural Born Killers, because it doesn't shock us, which should be a natural reaction.

[Logan Schneider]

I'm saying that if you claim to be a filmmaker or DOP, at least have some thing under your belt before you rip on the work of others who have completed projects in distribution. George Lucas made a rare outburst against Spiderman, called it "silly." Well he has the stature to say this, he's responsible for one of the biggest film franchises in history. He has a track record to back up his comments, most of us here don't.

 

The average joe public does not have to be held to this standard, they are simply consumers, and do not work in the industry. Most of us here do.

 

R,

 

It's funny that you should use George Lucas as an example. The Star Wars prequels destroyed a precious part of my childhood. I can't even watch the originals anymore and I love the originals. I think he is "silly".

 

Did Lucas make more money than god from the prequels? Yes, but they are crap.

 

The fact is that I make and watch movies. I have never shot a $100 million dollar feature, but I know a good film when I see one. I respect the special understanding that comes with having made your own feature. I've seen plenty of people fall apart trying to make a movie. However, we have to seperate our criticism of film from our respect for the big machine that makes the huge movies.

 

I do think that people tend to go too far one way or the other. Going back to Michael Bay, he has done good work and also made terrible movies. Sometimes his best work is hidden in his worst movies. (I echo the inability to watch Pearl Harbor again).

 

Try this. Instead of just saying that you like or don't like Bay's (or whomever else's) work, tell us what you do like or respect. What worked can often inform the viewer of the failures and vice versa.

 

By the way, since the Dawn of the Dead remake was mentioned, does anyone know how Matt Leonetti got that look? I thought it was beautiful.

[Logan Schneider]

wow. I just contradicted myself. Let me mention something about Lucas that I respect. he made some great movies at the start of his career, and I think his best move was knowing when to let someone else direct on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

 

I just wish he had left my childhood alone.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know about that, because if the violence is cartoony like in some Hong Kong action flicks, it manages to be entertaining without really having any connection to reality -- and often when Hollywood remakes these films, or imports these HK directors, the violence gets more believable and less entertaining, more grueling and painful. Now is that a good thing in a non-serious action movie? We're not talking about "Schindler's List" here.

 

I mean, Chuck Jones' Road-Runner cartoons are pretty violent but I'm not sure they'd be helped by being more realistic so that we really felt the pain of Wiley Coyote...

 

So to watch hyper-realistic violence being perpetrated on characters we care about so that we really feel their suffering -- then why is that entertainment anymore, especially in non-serious movies?

 

Personally, I'm fine with the notion of the filmmaker communicating that this material is not to be taken seriously or as realism, and the action and violence becoming more like an old Hollywood musical number, like John Woo's "Hard Boiled". The poster alone of Chow Yun Fat holding the baby is enough of a clue to tell you how seriously to take what you're viewing.

 

Seeing people tortured slowly and realistically as a form of entertainment to me is a lot more disturbing than seeing a UFO blow-up the White House with a disintegrator ray.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

For me personally he's a lot less interesting than the other guys in the Bruckheimer stable. Any of his movies will always have a lot of movement - look at all dialogue sequences in Bad Boys 2 and you'll see the camera track one way and then cut, then track the other way. Constantly. It's as if he's saying "I don't trust that my actors or my script can hold people's attention for the 30 seconds this takes". It's nervous, it's bad and it's downwright sloppy. Armageddon, besides being full of pure cheese, is also full of a lot of these pointless things - there's a Technocrane 360 track around Billy Bob Thornton (as he presents the problem to mankind), that's just indulgent. No reason whatseover except to show off the (by then) new toy, the Tecnocrane.

 

To even mention Bay with guys like Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Adrian Lyne is blasphemous in my opinion. They truly changed Hollywood visually (there would be no Bruckheimer look or Bay without them), something Bay hasn't.

[Patrick Cooper]

?the scene in the Dawn of the Dead remake where two guys are shooting zombies of the roof for a shopping mall for fun is very tasteless in my eyes.?

 

Cruelty to zombies? Hmmm?.perhaps in the credits they should have noted: ?No zombies were harmed during the making of this film???

[David Sweetman]

To even mention Bay with guys like Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Adrian Lyne is blasphemous in my opinion. They truly changed Hollywood visually (there would be no Bruckheimer look or Bay without them), something Bay hasn't.

Ridley is a master of pace, Tony of emotion, Bay of sensationalism. uh, Lyne...really didn't like Jacob's Ladder...so...

 

Plus Bay is dedicated: "In Bad Boys (1995), Bay paid $25,000 (one quarter of his fee) for the climax explosion scene. The initial shot was made impossible by a rainstorm, and the production company refused to pay for another try."

 

Bay's sensationalism in visuals and cutting style has influenced Hollywood today as much as anyone, so that can't be your only criteria for worth. In my view, they're all somewhat on the same level. But I proably prefer Ridley Scott the most, for his pacing and subject matter, especially Alien and Blade Runner.

 

The next level is only achieved by the Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Godard types. But still, it all comes down to preference.

 

Also, Mr. Mullen - I wasn't saying I necessarily hold that view, I enjoy both films - but it's definitely something to think about. Also the violence in NBK is far from realism, and it's not like that of Saw, which is without purpose apart from sensationalism. (in my view NBK is unique in achieving the status of art, where entertainment is not the primary purpose, but truth is.)

Edited May 19, 2007 by David Sweetman

[Alex Lindblom]

Michael Bay I come to your defense.

 

As we all know, all film criticism is highly subjective, and everybody is entitled to to there opinion.

 

But one can never ignore good craft mans ship, and to claim that Bay knows squat about film making is just plain ridicules. ( even though if Pearl Harbor was the only film of his, you have ever seen, one may come to that conclusion ).

 

The Rock is a very fine example of what Hitchcock called "pure cinema", a story mainly told through the medium of film through cuts thats just creates forward movement for over 2 hours and that is extremely hard to do, so it doesn't seem convulted or dull.

 

And just to make sure nobody ever takes me seriously again on these forums, I will go out thin and I mean really thin ice, and state that there is only action movie the last 15 years that does this better then the rock, drum roll...

 

The long kiss goodnight.

 

Yes go Renny.

 

Yes I am Finnish but purely an objective observation promise : )

[M Joel W]

Michael Bay went to my college (and we're both majoring in the same things) so I've heard some stories about him. Apparently, he was an excellent photographer, a fraternity member, and basically the exact opposite of most of the other writers and directors who have come from my school (they are mostly artsy intellectuals). That said, I've heard good things about him for the most part, and the only bad things I've heard usually started with him being unfairly maligned by others.

 

I think, as a visual artist, he is nearly unparalleled. While Spielberg's films are more visually evocative (and the two have stolen a lot from each other), Bay's films are simply beautiful. I read an interview with him regarding The Island in AC, and he (rather than his talented DP), did all the talking. He was upset by the quality of Super35 in Bad Boys II (I was upset by the quality of story....) and insisted on shooting Anamorphic, even insisting that Panavision craft custom lenses for him. He's known for being a total jerk on set, but also for doing a ton of set ups, doing complex camera work, and orchestrating amazing camera moves. He even claims to do a lot of the work in setting up lights. Simply from the perspective of visual art, he's brilliant, and he's definitely a hard, dedicated worker. Plus, Transformers has a pretty low budget for what it is. He knows what he's doing.

 

I think people just see his dumb action movies with average stories and average acting (inoffensive in and of itself) juxtaposed against beautiful compositions and innovative shots that don't necessarily forward the story. He's a perfectly competent director and a decent storyteller, but he's a great visual artist, and the two tendencies reconcile in a frustrating way.

 

He's also apparently a bit of a jerk and egomaniac, and this makes him easier to hate. But come on, compared with Simon West and Bret Ratner, Bay not only has more talent, but has loads and loads more style.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Matthew Wauhkonen

[David Sweetman]

He even claims to do a lot of the work in setting up lights.

Uh-huh, the way actors do a lot of their own stunts.

[M Joel W]

Uh-huh, the way actors do a lot of their own stunts.

 

I'm sure he's exaggerating, but when you read AC and he's the one doing the talking and not his a-list DP, you have to at least give some respect for his obvious technical skill and attention to image quality. I'll respect him for his skill as a director, too, but I know not everyone else will.

[Nate Downes]

I just saw the trailer in the theatre, and one word: Wow! Visually impressive, striking in form, and looking less like a Bruckheimer work than anything Day has shot before. While some of the style I found in Armageddon and The Island was there, I also found a unique twinge, as if he was freed from some kind of limitation. I have already decided where I will be on July 4th.

[William A Chapman Jr]

Steven Speilburg is also adding a lot of input not just producing. I just read the article in cinema editor that Steven Speilburg is calling alot of the shots. Bay may be directing but Speilburg has the final say. Paul Rubell and glen Scantlebury ( the editors) said Speilburg is on the set and in the editing room all the time.

[Mateo Deza]

ye the trailer looks good but yeh i think that steven spielberg is giving influences in the movie, looks good tho

[Patrick Cooper]

"Steven Speilburg is also adding a lot of input not just producing."

 

This reminds me of 'Poltergeist.' Although Hooper was credited as director on that film, Speilberg was apparently on set much of the time and was able to contribute while there.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

The further along I get into making films, the more respect I have for people like Michael Bay (granted the only film he's made that I actually enjoyed was The Rock... and even that was iffy). He's got a style and his films draw people in. I too must admit that this trailer got my blood pumping in a way that I haven't had in a while. Definitely excited about it.

 

On a side note. I have been, at times, one to label Bay a "hack" filmmaker. I think I have to rescind that because he's living the dream. Making big movies and getting the chance to tell stories the way he wants to tell them. Are they big and overblown? Sure. But I think it's important to realize that big and overblown can be downright fun on occasion. I would have given my right arm to direct "Transformers" but am still happy to see something that looks really exciting coming in a month.

 

It just seems the more that I make films, the more I understand the gargantuan task it is to make something like Transformers or The Rock or Armageddon. Even if I don't like the films, my hats off to Bay and his crew. I think maybe we need to lighten up on allot of these guys in the future.

[Nick Mulder]

I'm off to see it tonight :ph34r:

 

Will start up a thread in the 'on the big screen' forum laterz