• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Do Trekkies Bash Michael Bay?

I thought Armageddon was superb. With a much better soundtrack than Star Trek to boot.

Superb!!! Superb??

I'm sorry that you think Armageddon was superb...really I am because in reality there is no way this film should be considered anywhere near superb...and by you thinking that it is saddens me because there are so many other finer films out there for viewing such as: Sunset Blvd, Bridge on the River Kwai, Witness for the Prosecution, How green was my valley, Judgement at Nurenburg(sp), Long Day's Journey into Night, the Night of the Hunter, How the West was won....I'll stop now because the list never ends...but Damn do I love me some night of the hunter!!!

Night of the Hunter? Haven't had anyone mention ages... Not even film snobs.... Then again, this new breed of film snobs think everything begins and ends with Kurasowa (nothing against the man).

Armageddon was terrible. It's like Deep Impact with more action but less emotional impact. Deep Impact was a decent, three star flick. It was a disaster movie about people dealing with the imminent disaster. Amageddon was a shoddy vehicle for explosions.

Are you implying that Orci and Kurtzman are actually Genuis, and that because we like the new Trek film we automatically think Abrams is a good director? For Christ's sake LENSE FLARE. God, drove me up the wall.

Abrams produced that cinematic Abortion that was Cloverfield, directed Mission Impossible 3 (just when I thought it couldn't get worse than Mission Impossible 2), and gave us TV crap like Lost, Alias, and Felicity.


Orci and Kurtzman gave us Transformers, and not even Star Trek XI has me able to forgive them.

Yeah by no means do I think this Abrams guy is a genius or master film maker...same goes for the other two...Orci & Kurtzman. I mean when you see a really well written film then you can fully appreciate it and realize that these guys ain't it.
Even Star Trek XI had enough issues for me to think that these people are getting lucky... The dialog was over expository. The actors did a good job expressing their characters as they will.... Do we need Spock to SAY he's emotionally compromised AFTER a fist fight on the bridge? All he should say is he steps down.

The movie is full of minor things like this that add up. I actually think it's an insult to the great cast for thinking they can't show this through their performance, and an insult to the audience for thinking we'll never understand it.

I like how they determine every little bit of the "Time Travel" subplot out of nowhere in a manner that is so clearly speaking to the audience, they might as well have just looked at the screen.


If I watch it again (which I will, mostly because I still have friends who want to go with me) I can point out all these parts where the writers didn't exactly do a good job. They had a good story, and mostly well written, and it turned out pretty good. But I'm not going to count on them.



I believe that somethings about movies are objective. Star Trek XI is definitely to my tastes, and I enjoyed it. Enough for me to forgive the imperfections. Somethings, however, are NOT objective. People like to say "Well, it's my opinion" when the truth is, there are very specific things in movies that make the script better, the cinematography better, and all and all a greater production, even if you like other films better.... But now I'm rambling....

Point is, the script wasn't nearly as polished as it should have been, and it's the best thing that Kurtzman and Orci wrote. I think them and Abrams had little to do with the success of this film. The Production Design team is made up of the unsung heroes of this film, and the superb cast managed to go above and beyond the call of Duty.
 
Michael Bay had some experience in alternate universes prior to this though, remember 'pearl harbor'. Interesting idea; 'What if the Americans saved the world, from Britain to Japan, by being awesome, and a black cook saves Hawaii'. Fascinating historical fiction.
 
I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that’s an awful lot girl
And now, now you’ve gone away
And all I’m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He’s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that sh***y movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you
 
He is an awful director making formulaic crap, with one of the worst careers in Hollywood...
Worst careers you say? Is that why he has a bank account of $200 million?
If that's how you define a great career, I guess he's "successful." We can be damn sure nobody is going to watching or talking about his movies after he's dead, though....or even 20 years from now, maybe less.
 
^You are wrong. Generation Y will make sure of that. People born in the 80s and 90s will see Bay, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman as some of the best in business.

Even Shakespeare was a commercial success during his life time.
 
^You are wrong. Generation Y will make sure of that. People born in the 80s and 90s will see Bay, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman as some of the best in business.

Even Shakespeare was a commercial success during his life time.

Abrams is already >>> Bay

And no, people born in that era see Arnofsky, Del Toro, Fincher, Thomas Anderson and The Coen Brothers as the best in the business.
 
He helped them to hone their skills on "The Island" and "Transformers".

It's hard to "hone your skills" on a movie that's a rip off and on a movie that has no plot, story, structure and treats its titular characters as secondaries.
 
^You are wrong. Generation Y will make sure of that. People born in the 80s and 90s will see Bay, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman as some of the best in business.

Even Shakespeare was a commercial success during his life time.

Abrams is already >>> Bay

And no, people born in that era see Arnofsky, Del Toro, Fincher, Thomas Anderson and The Coen Brothers as the best in the business.

See, I don't like Fincher or Arronofsky, but I can at least understand why they are well liked and why they might be remembered.


None of Bay's movies will be hailed like classics, most of them have been forgotten already. People have forgotten Bad Boys as anything but a punchline, same as Armageddon, Pearl Harbor is only remembered thanks to Team America World Police... And I don't mind that, it really was a good song...


Arronofsky made Requiem for a Dream, a movie I hated, but was generally a critical success and managed to get a huge following. It also doesn't talk down to the audience,or fill itself up with pseudo intellectual nonsense yet it is a movie you can pick apart. That's why he will be remembered as a great director.

Granted, I don't think we needed two hours and ass to ass to tell us drugs are bad, but still.....


I would add Sam Raimi to the list, having started just before the Coen brothers.... Quite frankly because he is what Michael Bay tries to be... He is the master of the spectacular, the perfect director of fun, action packed popcorn cinema. Mostly because of his inventive and unique style and the fact that he gives us strong enough characters to hold the story together between action beats. I'm hardly a fanboy, and have been extremely critical of several of his films.... But I think he's definitely got the staying power.
 
Point is, the script wasn't nearly as polished as it should have been, and it's the best thing that Kurtzman and Orci wrote. I think them and Abrams had little to do with the success of this film. The Production Design team is made up of the unsung heroes of this film, and the superb cast managed to go above and beyond the call of Duty.

Of course it wasn't polished. It was rushed into production before the writer's strike, and during the strike they couldn't issue rewrites.
 
Michael Bay is so original!

Plot similarities with Parts: The Clonus Horror
The following are plot points which accurately describe both movies.
  • There is a secret community of clones who are being created so that their organs can eventually be harvested in order to extend the lives of people, living outside of the community, wealthy enough to afford the process.
  • When it is time for a clone (or more precisely, his or her organs), the clone is led to believe that he or she has been "randomly" chosen to go to what has been advertised as a utopia. The utopia, which of course does not really exist, is "America" in Clonus, and "The Island" in The Island.
  • The community of clones is closely monitored by video surveillance and uniformed guards, who closely observe the actions of the clones.
  • The main character is an inquisitive clone living in the community who finds clues about the outside world.
  • The main character eventually escapes the community.
  • A woman, which the community staff try to keep the main character from getting too close to, becomes the love interest for the protagonist, urging the protagonist to return to the facility after escaping.
  • The project director sends assassins after the character.
  • The main character gets betrayed by a genetic parent/sponsor he seeks and contacts in the outside world.
  • The President (candidate for President in Clonus) is known to have a clone.
  • The cloning program is exposed at the end of the film.

Not that I'm suggesting ripping off other movies is an ok thing... but really, that looks like an incredibly generic list, and I'd be shocked if an older science fiction story didn't have the exact same plot. For this, The Clonus Horror folks sued The Island?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top