Nov. 19, 1999, 3:32 p.m. CST
by Mickey Knox
Agree w/Swami. Get some therapy, you little underage sissy. And what has Marketing Man ever done to you? At least he's got posts worth reading. You on the other hand - you suck! (I mean on AICN, I don't know what you do in your personal life, but from the way you write, it sounds like you do LOTS of sucking!) FAIG!
Nov. 19, 1999, 3:38 p.m. CST
by Swami Scott
Where's all our posts? This is bullshit. First he doesn't give us any news and now he's deleting everyone's posts. What's the deal, Harry, you working with a bunch of low-brows who keep fucking up your shit? Man, is your team inept!
Nov. 19, 1999, 3:53 p.m. CST
I guess it's "hip" to be a Bay basher nowadays. So be it. With Michael Bay we know we are getting a "motion picture" as opossed to getting "motion words." Anyway, Bay has managed to something very funny: piss a lot of you arty-film-snobs off. As to the post that Armageddon wasn't that successful: did any of your movies ever gross over half a billion dollars? I don't think so. I've learned how to enjoy movies as they come and find my personal/emotional/psychological/spiritual satisfaction somewhere else other than in movies.
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:02 p.m. CST
nelson, dont give us that shit that its "hip" to bash Bay like its "hip" to bash THE PHANTOM MENACE. Theres a perfectly good reason to bash Bay. His movies are predictable, boring (unless you fall for suspenceful bomb-wire-cutting scenes halfway thru the film), and technically unimpressive (he cuts fast so you dont notice that his framing is dull). Spend a hundred mil on FX, jerk off on it and you got a Bay film. If its hip to bash extremely immature filmmaking (i'd put ARMAGEDDON on level with BATMAN AND ROBIN), then call me hip and trendy.
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:18 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
I agree with nelson-- a lot of talkbackers feel it's cool to hate the Hell outta Bay-- and your attempt to write him off as a hack that's successful simply because he has the money to spend on special effects is a bunch of crap-- what did "Bad Boys" cost to produce-- something like $25 million dollars AT THE MOST?! And even though YOU no doubt hated that movie too, IT WAS ENTERTAINING AND EXCITING AS HELL. If a huge budget was all it took to make a blockbuster then why did "The Avengers", "B&R", and "WWW" flop and pretty much had the top studio executives counting all their pennies to say those films made any money(well, the last two I mentioned, that is)?
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:28 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
... and the battle rages on, as does Bay to make ENTERTAINING KICK ASS MOVIES...
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:29 p.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
Nelson, Armageddon was a financial disappointment because they spent a fucking fortune making and promoting it, and in the end it turned less than $100million profit. Now, you might say $100 million is pretty good. For a romantic comedy, yeah, it'd be fantastic. But consider that after worldwide boxoffice and home video that it took in over $500 million. Spend $400+ to make less than $100? That doesn't sound particularly exceptional to me. And your dismissal of Bay-haters as 'art-house snobs' is pathetic and hilarious. First, these are the people who love Star Wars and Star Trek and other 'low-brow' stuff. Hardly art-house snobs. Second, who else but film lovers should be talking about film technique and skill? Newsflash: The 'common people' which you always claim Bay is aiming for do NOT care what directing style you use. They can't tell nor care. So do you see how ridiculous it is to say his directing style is for the people when the people don't pay attention to it in the first place? They don't go because they want some of that epiletic editing and camera work. They go because Bruckheimer knows how to stack a movie with stars, explosions and market it like a demon. If you want to defend Bay against the attacks, talk about why you think his technique is good. Don't just dismiss everybody who disagrees with you as a snob. You might as well cover your ears and start yelling, "Nooo!! I don't want to listen!!"
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:29 p.m. CST
by Angry Catholic
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:34 p.m. CST
by Angry Catholic
Harry its clear you are a thin skinned loser who still is love with Michael Bay cause he was smart in having the studio pay for your trip to florida to see CRAPAGEDDON. I guess we do not have to worry about you not geeting access for what now looks to be a lame ass TV show. Cause the studios know full well you just delete anything that they dont like...Yeah you say you are an outsider but the truth is you become a insider all a flimmaker has to do is bring you to thet or invite you to a premerie and they can sleep easy knowing how easy you can be bought off.
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:43 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
... where are you getting your facts from? I remember reading an issue of "Variety" about a year ago that placed "Armageddon"'s profits at $500 million BEFORE it even went to video... and numerous times it's been mentioned that that $140 million that went into producing the film was roughly the whole budget for both the physical production and the advertisement-- you really think Disney didn't get SOME MAJOR kickbacks for product placements by other companies? It only grossed a $100 million?? Now that's more of a joke than Michael Bay's editing...
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:44 p.m. CST
by Angry Catholic
I mean youve gone from covering news events to PROMOTING flims you think we should see. This is why I have no respect for you or Roger Ebert or any other cirtic (Save Michael Medved) any more cause you now want to be part of the creative process...Critics discovered this from the Full Monty, when their raves powered it to 60 million in the US thats what you want to do now discover flims (i.e. SIX STRING SAMURI which sucked big time...) and then turn around and say ohhhh look at what i helped the America find at the Cineplex...I mean you liked all the movies that you are seeing at the studios...Oh yeah harry another point THE STUDIOS ARE PAYING YOUR EXPENSES TO FLY OUT THERE TO LA OR WHERE EVER AND SEE THIER MOVIES. OH YOU CAN FART ALL YOU WANT ABOUT HOW MICHAEL BAY PAID FOR YOUR TRIP TO CAPE CANAVERAL BUT I GOT NEWS FOR YOU HE JUST TOOK THE BILL FROM HIS CREDIT CARD AND HAD DISNEY PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! HARRY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT IF YOU THINK THAT ANY FLIMMAKER IS GOING TO FLY YOUR LOSER ASS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE! So ACINrs be aware that this site is really in control of the studios and the guy who runs it along with his delusional dad have no idea how they become part of what they hate the most the hollywood publicity machine.....Let the deleting begin...All hail to haary the Nazi...
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:56 p.m. CST
I hate to break it to you asses but Armageddon cost 98 million to make and less then that to promote. But its DOMESTIC take was 250 MILLION and globaly it has done 520 MILLION so next time LOOK AT THE FACTS. The reason it didnt cost so much (and i stress that slightly) is that Joe Roth was concerned about the movie's gross before filming begun. Trust me Jerry Bruckheimer will not settle for less.
Nov. 19, 1999, 4:56 p.m. CST
by 20th Century Fox
...is fucking gone. It amazes me how he tells every TV station that comes by his house how he bulit this site to save us flim geeks from bad movies. We all now know what a crock that is, the site seems to evolved or deevolved into a way for Harry to get on to sets of the latest flims and not spend a cent in getting there...All he has to do is say something positive and bammo heres your first class plane ticket to LA...Here is your passon to paramount to see sleepy hollow heres the pass to the premeiere party (which are totaly boring if you live here in LA) I mean harry where is your DOGMA review Did you think the movie sucked and were worried if you said so that Kevin Smith and Mirimax would stop sending you shit or that it might put KS resgining with those guys in jeporday (Yeah I know that anti-catholic bigot resigned with them yesterday...) I mean would Michael Bay really risk his flim at such an early stage showing you crappy animatics unless he knew you would be so wowed at seeing them before anyone else would get him some positve press coverage here...come on harry you used to see flims like the rerst of us in a theatre PAYING to go see them PAYING for your popcorn (ACINers did you know that the studios pay for your refreshmets at these screeings????)PAYING for your parking...But now you get it all for free. Unlike others i do not belive Harry has sold out rather he has been bought off so exicted that hes hanging with the big crowd that he cant see hes being used by them....If I have offended you please send all hate mail to email@example.com
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:06 p.m. CST
BTW, the REAL Wesley Snipes should sue you for character defamation. Anyway, this wanna-be Snipes makes shit up. He once posted that the Waschowski Brothers said that Bay's style is "empty and unsatisfing." I emailed this snipes and asked him where he got this statement. Needless to say, I never got a response." Since then I spoke to the Waschowski Brothers and they claim to have never said that or anything remotely like it. So there you go, his facts aren't straight. And please, don;t get me started on defending Bay's style. His work speaks for itself. It's just a matter of taste. This hate spewing and envy is an hour past funny.
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:10 p.m. CST
Yep its looking like a site revolt were sick of geeting fucked over by your punk ass facistic censoring of posts you dont like...You totally sold out Harry why dont you just get down on your knees and unzip micheal bays fly and suck his dick you fucking cheap ass sellout...Or betrer yet move to LA styart your soon to be lame ass TV show and just say "I I'm Harry Knowles if you are a hollywood flimmaker who wants good coverage no matter how bad your movie sucks just send me props, a first class ticket to the premerie, let me sit next to a cute babe who normally would puke at my rotundity,passes to the party and a nice hotel so my bloated form can rest..." I mean this is total BULL SHIT!!!!
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:13 p.m. CST
Hey there talkbackers, Mr. Knlowes has used us so he can hob nob with the Hollywood bigshots. In other words he SOLD OUT!!!!
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:17 p.m. CST
by Angry Catholic
You know Father Geek is probably telling Harry to delete us so he can fullfill his life long dream of fucking hollywood stars. He's sees this gravy train and hes not about to derail it...I can see it now, "Harry we need to keep Michael Bay and Barbra Striesand happy lets promote DOGMA and rave about Michael's Pearl Harbor Project..." HAARY: "Sure Dad, I sure dont want the money disney pays me to stop so I have to get a realy job...whatever you say..." Man what BS!!!!
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:19 p.m. CST
Harry Sold Out......Harry Sold Out.....Harry Sold Out.....Harry Sold Out...Harry Sold Out....Harry Sold Out...Harry Sold Out...Harry Sold Out....Harry Sold Out....Harry Sold Out...Harry Sold Out....
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:27 p.m. CST
by 20th Century Fox
It seems the peasants are rising up against you Harry what are you going to do?????
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:30 p.m. CST
Angry Catholic, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. You're so clouded by your own cynicism that you just can't possibly understand that someone could have a real, innocent passion for movies. If you actually read some of Ebert's reviews, you'll understand that he is one of the FEW critics who goes to the movies just because he loves movies....so don't knock ebert. And about Harry.......If a studio comes up to you and offers to fly you out to a premiere....WOULD ANY OF YOU SAY NO????????? HELL NO!! This is a guy who loves movies, and this kind of offer is irrefusable! Oh well, I"m just wasting my breath......this whole talkback is going to hell anyway.
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:34 p.m. CST
by I Love Fox!
It was here just a minute ago, and now it's gone. I want it back NOW, or else heads are gonna ROLL, and I'm startin' with Father Geek!
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:34 p.m. CST
Maybe ALOT of you weren't around, but THERE WAS an AINT-IT-COOL-NEWS without TALKBACK. Users in TALKBACK DID NOT FUCKING MAKE Aint-it-cool-news what it is today, so I hate to burst your bubble. None of ya'll were USED because NONE of ya'll actually had anything to do with it. DON'T YOU AGREE that TALKBACK benefits USERS a hell of a lot more than it benefits HARRY?
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:41 p.m. CST
YOU DAMN STINKING APE!!!!!!!!
Nov. 19, 1999, 5:49 p.m. CST
Micheal Bay a HACK!
Nov. 19, 1999, 6 p.m. CST
Michael Bay is probably one of the two or three most talented filmmakers working today (along with Kinka Usher and Simon West. Oh, and Dennis Dugan, too!) To say otherwise proves your ignorance. Furthermore, I now predict that TENNESSEE will win best picture of 2000. Long Live Bay!
Nov. 19, 1999, 6:05 p.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
Armageddon cost way over $100 million to make and you are fucking insane if you think it cost less than that to promote. You do realise that even smaller films in the 30 million range often have promotional budgets higher than the production budget right? 100 million on *domestic* P&A is almost fucking commonplace on big summer movies now. Now take Armageddon, which had posters and TV spots on for MONTHS (remember how they were worried about over-saturation around the time of release?), and you're telling me it didn't cost over $100 million to promote just in North America?? Wake up and smell the red ink, bozo. And to the other guy, who thought Armageddon make $500 million in profits BEFORE home video - Um, well, that outrageousness speaks for itself. Theatrically, it generated slightly over $500 million worldwide, so unless someone decided that the cost of the movie and advertising on it was meaningless, there is no way in hell it got even close to that figure in profits. When even the studio and production people admit that the cost of production is in the $140 million range, you can bet your ass it is no lower than that. Factor in the last minute reshoots and inclusions of huge effects sequences, you know it MUST have cost a helluva lot to make. And you should do some research on the costs of promoting movies nowadays. It'll blow your mind. There was even that whole thing about Buena Vista giving false weekly gross reports late in the run in order to squeak by with the #1 in the summer title. I'm not denying that a lot of people saw Armageddon. I'm just saying that for the amount of money they spent to get them there, there should have been a lot more of them.
Nov. 19, 1999, 6:10 p.m. CST
by Kent Allard
I'm sure that the TalkBack extinction had more to do with faulty software than a vengeful Father Geek, so it's nice to see after Harry rushes to get the TalkBack going again that everyone IMMEDIATELY floods it with insults about him. That must be what he dreamed of when he first conceived this site: "Well, it'll be OK to set up a site to give film geeks everywhere the scoop about new and cool flicks, but what I REALLY want is to set up a TalkBack forum where people can constantly call me a sell-out and a disgusting pig." Lighten the fuck UP, people! As has been said before from some of the more level-headed members of this site -- "If you don't like it, don't come back to it." I'm not saying Harry can't be wrong -- obviously he can. But this site was ALWAYS about him promoting films that he thought were cool (although I have to say he was WAAAY off base about Six-String Samurai --the best thing about that movie was the soundtrack). About the film & Bay: I personally liked "Bad Boys" and "The Rock", but hated "Armageddon." I think that most of his bad wrap has stemmed from Armageddon. Just as Oliver Stone did, Bay is getting too self-indulgent and has lost the spark that made him great. "Pearl Harbor" seems like a departure for him, which may or may not be a good thing. However, unlike a lot of you, *I* am willing to wait for more info before I make up my mind. Personally, I think it sounds like "Saving Private Ryan" meets "Titanic", but we'll see. Finally, for those of you determined to post negative comments about this film & Harry: learn to use Spellcheck. Maybe you're just so livid that you can't make your fingers type correctly, but when you read a post where someone is ranting about "flims in japorday", it lessens the impact of your argument by making you seem stupid. (This is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you AREN'T stupid, I guess.) Anyway, on with the revived TalkBack, Harry, my beleaguered Rubinesque friend.
Nov. 19, 1999, 6:15 p.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
Nelson, not only are you stupid, you're also a liar. What I wrote was that the Wachowski brothers said the _music video style_ were "empty and unsatisfying". Source: Teen Starlog featuring Matrix or Starlog's Matrix special. I don't know the exact one, but there's only 2 possibilities, so it wouldn't be hard to find out for sure. Look it up. And you NEVER wrote to me asking anything. I may think you're a moron, but I would spend the time to respond to a simple question like that. Happy? This should make you look like an even bigger ass than before, though that may not be physically possible. And by the way, how did bringing up any of that address the point in my first message? That's right, it didn't. Until you find something relevant to say, go back to sucking Bay's dick.
Nov. 19, 1999, 6:15 p.m. CST
this is really fucked up, i'm sorry but it has to be said, one minute i'm posting in the MI2 trailer talkback and the next someone's fucked off with all the postings, what the hell kinda shit is that anyway? and where the hell's harry, shouldn't he be kickin' ass all over the place now? that would rule...
Nov. 19, 1999, 7:46 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Michael Medved...Michael Medved....I've heard that name before and I think I was listening to a radio show of his that came on right after Limbaugh. (They played talk radio where I worked one summer) I could not STAND that guy! Of course, he was no where NEAR as bad a Limbaugh in the "I told you so" department of making everyone think he is the god of all thought, but hell...Michael Medved over EBERT????? You have to be kidding me! I'm stunned. AND...what's with all this Harry bashing lately? If you don't trust his reviews, why come to the site (I know some said for Moriarty and I respect that because Moriarty IS the best thing about this site besides Talk Backs.)?
Nov. 19, 1999, 7:54 p.m. CST
by Angry Catholic
and there has not been since July 1998. Thats cause the studios saw when ARMAGEDDON came out how easily it is to buy harry off. I agree with Mr Raytlo about other sites scooping this one. Talkback is the only really good thing about it...
Nov. 19, 1999, 7:56 p.m. CST
This is possibly the biggest case of "what were they thinking" I've ever seen. And we're witnessing it as it happens! Yes, I'm talking about the huge budget that will probably balloon to $200 million, but what I am more bothered with is Michael Bay. MICHAEL BAY SUCKS!!! I must confess that while I love serious films by Cameron and Spielberg, I also love action films. Films by John Mctiernan and Richard Donner, of the "Die Hard," and "Lethal Weapon" films, respectively. However, Michel Bay is the anti-Spielberg. Spielberg has been called the greatest story teller of all time. I don't know if that's true, but he is a great story teller. Michael Bay can not tell a story. He is practically talentless--all he has is the stamina and drive to get a motion picture done. He has no style--he just shoots what the script says, from every possible angle, and loves his shots so much that he puts all of them in the final cut. Despite shooting scenes from all over the place, he never knows where to put his camera. "The Rock" never gave you a feel for the labyrinth of Alcatraz. We could never see how big the asteroid was in "Armageddon" compared to the shuttles and the characters. Almost all of "Armageddon" was an incoherent mess; An action sequence started. An explosion here, a shot of a character there, and alot of other images shown so fast you can't tell what the hell is happening. At the end of each sequence a quote is spoken summarizing the event, filling us in on what we just missed, i.e. "We still got 90% of the fuel," "It's gonna blow", and "Gruber's dead." Who the hell was Gruber anyway? As for "Tennessee," Who knows. It's a bad idea. But maybe Bay has a hidden talent that we haven't seen yet. Somehow I doubt it. Word has it that he wants the academy award for this movie. Shooting a serious movie about a very important event in our history, and a couple of scenes of Gweneth Paltrow crying, expressing her love for the characters in this film isn't going to do it for him though.
Nov. 19, 1999, 8:01 p.m. CST
by 20th Century Fox
I respect Michael Medved cause he does not use his postion to PROMOTE flims or become advocates for them. I mean look at Ebert and how he was bitching about EYES WIDE SHUT and saying it was censorship...yet he deliberalty left out how Kubrick was obligated by a CONTRACT to deliver a R rated flim..Michael Medved is the only critic I know that had the balls to point this out
Nov. 19, 1999, 10:28 p.m. CST
Sam......am I getting tag team help? I thought it was me vs. everyone else.....oh well, maybe I'm paranoid. 20th Century Fox....how is Ebert's bitching about censorship promoting a film?? And besides, if you really beleived a film is good and deserves to do well, isn't it right for a reviewer to use any means necessary to promote it? Do any of you think its wrong that Ebert gave Mononke Hime four stars and he wants people to go watch it? Isn't it a reviewer's JOB to steer people towards the film he feels are noteworthy and away from the ones he doesn't?
Nov. 19, 1999, 10:33 p.m. CST
I posted something about this last night, but it got deleted. Sorry, this is totally off subject (as if there were any central topic in here). But since someone mentioned the Wachowski's and the Matrix, did anyone see the Matrix DVD wit the little white rabbit scenes? In the one where they explain "bullet-time" the guy goes something like "bullet-time was conceived especially for the matrix"....... BULLSHIT!!!!!! I was a big fan of this movie cause to me it represented all the badass things I've seen in anime brought to life. I expected them to at least pay homage to all those janimation films but all the little punk could do was glorify himself (i don't know who the guy was, he wasn't either of the directors) ALSO, has anyone else noticed how similar the Matrix is to AKIRA? Tetsuo stops a tank shell with his mind, reality bending powers....hmmmmmm..... Don't get me wrong, the Matrix is one bad ass movie, but they can't really take all the credit for its "originality"...
Nov. 19, 1999, 10:57 p.m. CST
You are really starting to piss the shit out of me. If I was harry, I'd BAN your sorry fuckin' ass and delete every damn post you put up! But you know what? I can't, because I'm not him. Now I'm really starting to get annoyed. Why? Because you KNOW i'm not, but you keep putting up your damn posts just to get on my nerves. I've noticed you have absolutely nothing else to contribute here. Why don't you go out back and copulate with your mother who've you got chained to your fence. At least it'd be more productive then the shit you're giving me.
Nov. 19, 1999, 11:02 p.m. CST
AS I said my BAD sorry.
Nov. 19, 1999, 11:37 p.m. CST
so did moriarty send a shit-load of his henchman on a seek and destroy mission to kick that dog/bear Mason's punk ass? that's the least i'd expect.....and i have to say that this niiiice-jjgittes thing reminds of the best of quentin vs. lane myers, ah memories, misty water colour memories at the corner of my mind........
Nov. 19, 1999, 11:44 p.m. CST
Guarantee: the destruction of the "Arizona" will be the biggest explosion in cinematic history. Mark my words. Why do you people hate Bay so much? All he does is make movies, and yet you treat him like he just spit in your mother's face. I agree his style is overly-kinetic, but all you bitter little whiners just can't seem to get over that. If you don't like his movies, don't watch them. All your pathetic ranting and raving got really old a long time ago. Learn some new tricks. As for Harry, what has he done to deserve your ire? I think a lot of you are jealous of Harry. You all want to go to Hollywood premieres and movie sets, and get cool gifts, or be on 'Siskel and Ebert.' And when you see Harry doing it, you get all bent out of shape: "That should be me!!! I want to go on a movie set!!!Harry's a big fat sellout!!!" Face it: Harry, through a lot of hard work and effort, has made something of himself, and a lot of you can't take it when you see him enjoying the fruits of his labor. Getting back to the topic at hand, you should check out 'Tora Tora Tora.' Bay and Bruckheimer should watch this movie, just to check out the attack on Pearl Harbour. Pretty damned impressive, even by today's standards.
Nov. 20, 1999, 1:49 a.m. CST
...but nobody's buying. It's very depressing.
Nov. 20, 1999, 1:54 a.m. CST
I don't know about you all, but I thought the visuals from Armageddon were crap. They looked like they came from a friggin commercial or something!
Nov. 20, 1999, 3:50 a.m. CST
To clarify this from the beginning, this post will be almost entirely in support of Michael Bay. Just so you know in case any of wish to stop reading at this point and post a message pertaining to the eradication of me and my fellow Bay supporter, racial slurs (I'm German-Indonesia just to make it easier on you), and various other insulting phrases that would question my mental state, integrity, and what hallucinogen the almighty was on when he decided to create me. If you are one of these people then fine, go right ahead and enjoy yourself. I don't hold much weight behind your words and neither should anyone else who comes here. I don't honestly care if anyone agrees with me but I won't hold any respect for backing up a claim with anything intended to offend. That is where the line is drawn between a fight and a discussion. The discussion ends once the basis of the argument becomes the tearing down of the opposition as opposed to the supporting of the claim. If you have a claim and you have a reason behind it better then "I'm right and that's all" then I'm all ears. If not then you're making the list of posts longer then it needs be. Personally I'm not at all against Harry deleting any or all posts that do not contain a supported claim. Now that I've made my statement on the state of talkback today I can move onto Michael Bay. Yes I may be Biased considering Bay is one of my favorite Directors (among Alex Proyas, and Edward Zwick) and that might actually matter. First off I'll address the point of Bay's fast cutting and cinematography that so many take as the first reason to hate his work. I have to agree that Bay has rather fast cutting but to date I still have yet to see any fault behind it. I'm quite a fan of cinematography and I praise the effect that Bay's camera work has on his films. Certainly the use of this is quite difficult with all the angles and shots that must be put together and there are often glitches when you're fiddling with that much material. Take for instance the Battle at Sterling in Braveheart. Where with all the Material to be put in there were two shots of the same boy getting an arrow in the foot. With one during each wave of arrows. Or at the Battle of Falkirk when we see Mel Gibson charging in reaching for the historically famous "Wallace Claymore" on his back and then in the next shot he's still got the pike in his hand. These glitches do exist in virtually every film that holds any scenes with a lot of material to cut between. Whether under Richard Donner, John Woo, Alex Proyas, James Cameron, or Mel Gibson. But what of the profit that fast cutting brings to action scenes? Actions scenes are pretty much intended to keep the audience at the edge of their seats. To do that the action must hold in it a certain amount of intensity. John Woo and John Frankenheimer do this through complexity of the action scenes. Woo's world famous shoot outs are not intended to be "realistic" but to be filled with so much firing, debris, and dodging of bullets that the viewer sits there in awe. John Frankenheimer's car chase in Ronin was spectacular for the complicated choreography of the cars as they raced through half of Paris in ten minutes. In the absence of this the use of the camera more then makes up in terms of intensity. Take for instance the shoot out in the Morgue in The Rock. It consisted of Sean Connery taking one man out with a knife and then ducking behind cover with Nicholas Cage as they exchange fire with another Marine who dives through a plate of glass, fires off a few shots and then is hit in the feet taking him down. This is not the end of it but doesn't nearly compare to the amount placed in a John Woo shoot out where there is constant movement of the characters whilst they fire. In this scene however the two remained in their places throughout most of the scene but with erratic camera movement and cutting brought through the hectic nature of the entire scene and made it just as intense as the aircraft hanger shoot out in FACE/OFF though not quite as "spectacular" in scale. Cutting adds an undeniable intensity to action. Though I loved the Lobby shoot out in The Matrix it used such a degree of slow motion shots that even with all the debris, gunfire, and movement I only watch it now for the "spiffy" shots as opposed to the intensity. For that I'd rather watch Alex Proyas's shootout in The Crow or Michael Bay's in The Rock. My best example in the end is the fast cutting of Tony Scott (Bay and Scott seem to be Bruckheimer's favorites) compared to Richard Donner in the case of the foot chases in Lethal Weapon 4 through China Town and the foot pursuit of Jason Lee in Enemy of the State. Though i've seen Enemy of the State several times (like all other Bruckheimer films) I find it still to be far more tense then Lethal Weapon 4. Then again most of the complaints I assume might be of the cutting outside of the action. I find that it can only added to the scenes if done correctly. To do this correctly the camera cannot lose focus on the characters and their faces. This I find Michael Bay does well. The movement of the camera often purposely adds tension to the scene. Taking into account the argument between General Hummel (Ed Harris, fantastic performance) and Commander Anderson(Michael Biehn) as Hummel has Anderson's men surrounded ordering them to lower their weapons. But of course Anderson won't give that order and the fight escalates to the slaughter of Anderson's Seal Team. As they exchange words the Camera switches in between them. Though the conversation is quick there is never a loss of control of the camera. As Hummel says his part the firmness of his statement increases as the camera swiftly zooms into him. Such a shot happens again to increase tension coming into a scene of action as Hummel sits motionless at his desk contemplating over whether or not to launch the rocket. As the camera moves closer the tension arises until finally he picks up the receiver and "Fire". During both of these two scenes the thrilling factor was upped considerably and the audience was on the edge of their seats as they should be. Though these scenes lead up to the action there are scenes that do not where a similar tactic is successfully used. As Hummel, with a serious face, takes a moment to think while the camera swirls past his face for a short moment increasing the strength of the shot though it could have been done by simply placing the camera in front of his face for twice the time.. Or as Cage lies on the floor of a jail sell speaking to John Mason(Sean Connery) and from a top down view the camera slowly moves in of his face. Never does the cutting or camera's movement take away from the drama that is already there in within the actors by losing focus and whenever possible adding to the scene. As for Bay's storytelling ability and directing of actors I also praise him. Though I do find that he needs some more work on portraying time in his films. In Bad Boys there was no o problem but in The Rock and Armageddon there would sometimes be moments that would feel like 5 minutes but instead end up being an hour. In The Rock when Goodspeed(Cage) is removing the guidance chips from 12 missiles w see him open the first container and do some work, then we cut to General Hummel shout some orders, and then back to cage. Though it looks as though he's still working on the same container as before it ends up being the eleventh or twelfth one. Or in Armageddon when 5 minutes or drilling turns into 2 and a half hours. This of course is a problem that can be overlooked if you catch them saying that an amount of time has passed. In terms of his directing of drama I find Bay to be on a level above many other action directors or at the same if not higher then many drama directors. James Cameron I take as my example in this. Though it is his least like film, I prefer to use Armageddon here in defense of Bay. This is I remind you my opinion but I found the acting and directing in Armageddon surpassing that of Titanic. I guess the best example I can give for this would be the ever reliable "female weep-o-meter". For this my lovely sister(who I will refer to as Lucifer, or Lucy for short) among other people. I won't deny that most girls and probably some guys I know cry at movies and did cry at Titanic (I'm leaving myself out of this in order to maintain my masculinity, so long as no one mentions Courage Under Fire(Zwick) or Braveheart until I've found my tissues). But I fondly remember my sister, Lucifer, in tears during the President's speech in Armageddon as his words and the images of around the world as people pray, or look up into the sky along with the images of the group of saviors walking down the path to their impending task as "the dreams of an entire planet are focused tonight on the fourteen brave souls traveling into the heavens". Then again at the end of Armageddon with Harry's (Bruce Willis) sacrifice. Though most will admit that it didn't come as any BIG surprise she was still in tears hoping that they would decide to "Hollywood" the movie at the end and find some way to save him at the last minute just as long as they didn't kill him. After the movie while wiping away her tears she said that though the movie wasn't all that great it hit her with a stronger surge of emotion then Leo's death in Titanic or the whole of Titanic together. But the emotion that came with the sacrifice of a character ,no matter how predictable, can only be attributed to the connection that the audience holds to that character. This of course is primarily attributed to the director and then to the actor. For my other examples I will generalize as frequently when the idea is brought up I have found people to agree with me about the emotional content of the two movies. Though it takes a bit of convincing since most have never truly compared the two movies in such a way but once the idea has been brought up the answer has been almost unanimous. Naturally I use females to judge emotional content as guys would refuse to answer anyway to maintain their "butchness". A Blockbuster action flick to an epic love story of tragedy. I hold no doubt that with Pearl Harbor (or TENESSEE) that Bay and Randall Wallace will bring out the tears, sacrifice, and emotion that will surpass Titanic whether it does better in the box-office or not. This will to some extent be my conclusion as I feel I have at least partially been able to justify my opinion on Michael Bay. His position as a big budget BlockBuster doesn't bother me in the least. Those are just the films he has made so far and has made well. People may not have liked his films entirely but I know of very few that didn't come out of his films entertained. Whether it be through the action, the drama, or simply the joy of sitting next to their girlfriend in a dark room for two hours. As I recall all his movies have been over two hours and many movies over that suffer as scenes are to long or to boring. Yet through wonderful use of musical score, cinematography and direction there rarely exists a moment that will lose the audience's attention. And the audience's attention is one of the few things a movie cannot afford to lose. Time has shown us several directors who had based themselves on action films who more then proved that they are capable of taking the dramatic parts scenes that have already done and created a piece that is based on drama. I guess here I am obligated to mention Cameron though I find that this is not the best example. In this year we have seen John Mctiernan go from Die Hard to a fun, thrilling, and drama driven The Thomas Crown Affair. Though it was not your typical "Love Story", it was a story of the drama between two people. Better yet. What of the most infamous Steven Spielberg? Where did he begin? A pop-corn selling, money making, thriller taken from every man's fear of the deep waters and what lies beneath. All this combined is a segment of what I myself use to justify my support of Michael Bay and I hope this will be considered as I would consider your arguments against him that can hold their weight with reason and thought. Not arrogance and self-righteousness.
Nov. 20, 1999, 8:33 a.m. CST
Suddenly I realize that I'm not a good talk-backer. I must learn to do better. For example, I posted a glowingly happy "Isn't this great" post in the LOTR talk back in celebration of the great times we live in, SW and LOTR. This is no good. I have to take lessons from you, kind sirs. Let's try. FUCK you and the horse you rode in on!! Hmm... not good enough. FUCK ALL OF YOU YOU'RE MORONS! Still, the spelling is a little off... let's try YOU KNOW NUTHIN OF NUTHIN!! SUCK ASSSSSSS!!!!!!! LOTR, SW, BAY, HARY, FATHE GEEK, LUCAS AND MOIRARTY TO ARE GAI HOMOS!!!!!!!!!! Now, I am a talk backer. Thank you for your time.
Nov. 20, 1999, 11:11 a.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
I think you sort of alluded to the problem with Bay in your post: He cranked up the funky camera tricks and editing to create intensity in the morgue shootout so that stationary characters firing at each other would be more exciting. Thing is, he does this with ALL his intense action scenes, whether the on-screen carnage needs it or not. In other words, it's never shot and cut to accentuate the action; The editing and camera tricks ARE the action. That's why so many people complain that they can't easily tell what's going on. It's like Bay doesn't care what the characters are doing. The blazing fast, almost random editing and shaky closeups create all the intensity he needs. Before someone calls this a 'brilliant' method of creating the intensity and chaos of action, I'd say that any monkey can shake the camera around and say they're recreating intensity. If it's done as carelessly as the shuttle crash in Armageddon, then you've got an audience full of people going, 'what the fuck, who just died there? what the hell is going on?' When the audience knows something important just happened and yet it's too jittery and rapid to tell what occurred, they're taken the out of the movie. That's never a good thing, IMHO. The hard part is creating the excitement and tension while making it exactly clear what's going on at all times. Take a look at the shootout in Heat, the car chases in Ronin, or some of the scenes in Jurassic Park. All very intense, yet perfectly clear what's going on at all times. Even Saving Private Ryan, with its shaky cam style at the beginning, you'll notice that 1) When the camera gets really shaky, the shot is held for a relatively long time so that the audience can get a grip on it, 2) the shaky shots are practically all medium or long shots, not closeups, thus again making it clearer what's occurring on screen, and 3) the least clear (if any) shots in terms of editing and camerawork are just used when showing random carnage and 'atmosphere', not when any of the important characters are doing stuff. So it's not that Bay uses rapid editing, closeups, shaky cam or anything else alone. A lot of people use those tools. It's HOW he puts it all together that is wretched. He's a photographer not a director, and I think this shows in his lack of narrative skills and obsession with getting in tons of random but nicely-lit shots.
Nov. 20, 1999, 11:33 a.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
Other issues: A by-product of Bay's closeups and shaky cam is that you rarely get a sense of space and where everyone is in relation to each other or even in relation to the room. I suppose that's okay the first time you see it in the theatre because you're too busy being blown away by the intensity of it all. But it makes for horrid repeat viewings, especially at home where the smaller size of the TV screen saps away the intensity. When you get used to the movie and the spectacle has gone away, you're left wishing you could get a clearer look at the action, but with Bay's movie you rarely do. I think The Rock really suffers from this. Now, having said all that, I must say that I usually watch most of Bruckheimer's action movies because I find them very amusing. The man knows how to shape an entertaining action script and get good actors to play with it. If he could only choose better directors, he'd have the critical success (less negativity anyway) to match his extreme commercial success. And I do not think that replacing Bay with anyone else would necessarily increase Bruckheimer's grosses. I'm of the opinion that most non-movie- fanatic folk don't usually care about or notice the director unless his name is Spielberg. So I don't think it would hurt him at all to try directors with different sensibilities.
Nov. 21, 1999, 12:43 a.m. CST
I as well do not understand where all this Bay bashing comes from. Each of his movies are consecutively more succcessful. I for one loves his fast edit style and over the top directing. Why can't you guys just admit that you don't like that STYLE of action instead of tearing down the director. If you can't understand what's happening in his action sequences, then I suggest you watch the movie instead of looking at it. His shakey camera work can be random, but it echoes the CHAOS (helllloooo!!!) of the moment. The previous reviewer's comments on how he built intensity between Ed Harris' and Michael Biehn's exchanges was dead on for me. I consider myself a hardcore action/gore junky, who for the record, while loving Matrix, was not wowed out of my seat with the action sequences. Blame it on John Woo and every third movie out of Hong Kong. Despite my bloodlust, I too found the President's speech in Armageddon (OK and ID4) very moving. I also cried in Armageddon when Willis told Affleck he loved him. And in Titanic... Anyway, I'm also the type of guy that thought The Evil Dead was one of the funniest movies I had ever seen (the second time around... the first viewing had me shaking like a pussy). Why did I get emotional in these flicks? Because I got into the movie. I liked the characters, and I LET the director manipulate me. It's weird because I am a doctor and have seen several (that's several too many) patients die in the hospital, but I am better able to suck it up in front of grieving loved ones than in the final minutes of an asteroid movie. Oh oh, time to find a shrink... The bottom line is, if you don't enjoy the style of movie making, you will not be able to benefit from ANYTHING the director subsequently tries to do. Just accept the fact that you need a different type of pacing in your story telling, and leave Bay alone. Oh yeah, and leave Harry alone while you're at it. Jesus Christ, talk about your petty,paranoid, ungrateful, and envious little pissants. Elcabio
Nov. 21, 1999, 9:53 p.m. CST
Well if it is in to hate Michael Bay, I guess I have been out of it for a long time. He directs beautifully. The camera movements help add emotion to the shot, the beams of light he uses add effect where it is needed. So what if the average cut in armageddon was about a second...big whoop de doo! If you were paying attention to that, then its a wonder why you probably didn't like the movie, as you didn't see it. Now granted, it isn't exactly an oscar nominee, but still. It wasn't a bad movie. I am pleasantly awaiting Pearl Harbor...actually, anxiously. I am probably one of Bay's biggest fans. All of his movies have simply been works of art in a sense. I personally love how he gets more out of a shot by using certain techniques that are "Bay-esque" in origin. :) Later folks... Ryan
Nov. 22, 1999, 4:33 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
Y'know I can't wait to see your GREAT MOVIE when it comes out since you know SO MUCH about filmmaking-- you just gave us all such an in depth, and profound breakdown of Bay's directing style and how Hollywood works... there's a number of talkbackers who criticize Marketing Man for ATTEMPTING to be a know-it-all-- but you, my boy, take the proverbial cake... as I asked before in a previous post-- where do you get your facts from????? The guy who mentioned that "Armageddon" costs $98 million is supposed to be COMPLETELY WRONG while you are the ANSWER MAN?!? GET FUCKIN' REAL!!! Actually you're the one who needs to do your research... as I said before in "Variety" and more than a few other HOLLYWOOD TRADE magazines it was established that "Armageddon" had cleared $500 million before it came to home video-- and I saw this FOR MYSELF-- the particular issue that mentioned this had come out in early Sept. of the year of the film's release and I don't recall "Armageddon" being at Blockbuster at that time-- do you?... as for the film's budget... another FACT is that Mr. Bruce "Moneybags" Willis earned roughly $15 million for the movie-- Joe Roth had considered that a "discount" since Disney had saved Willis from that "Broadway Brawler" fiasco that he was trying to produce... after that the highest paid actor(s) in the film was Billy Bob Thorton, who made roughly $1 million (due to his Oscar prestige) and then Ben Affleck whose price was $650,000 since "Good Will Hunting" hadn't been released yet when "Armageddon" was being made-- now if you factor in that Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay couldn't have been paid more than $15 million jointly for producing and directing-- a $98 million price tag for THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PRODUCTION makes sense-- add another $42 million for promotion costs and re-shoots and it comes together like mathematics... and those are FACTS, buddy-- look it up all over the 'net if you disagree...
Nov. 22, 1999, 5:50 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
And just to let you know: I don't think Bay is GOD, while I enjoy his movies... he DEFINITELY NEEDS to work on his editing and camera set-ups, but I take into consideration that this guy is RELATIVELY NEW to the filmmaking biz and hopefully will mature and get better control of his craft... as for Jerry Bruckheimer's lack of critical praise-- I don't he's worried about it too much-- especially when he looks at his bank statements, but also in regard to that: why do you think he teamed up with Tony Scott for "Crimson Tide" & "Enemy Of The State"? Both of those films were incredibly well reviewed for action films; and his upcoming "Remember The Champions" is seriously low-budget with Boaz Yakin (I think) directing...
Nov. 22, 1999, 6:14 p.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
First, I'm just giving my opinion of Bay's directing style and some examples of what I think is wrong with it. Did I tell the previous guy who wrote the huge message about what he thought was RIGHT about Bay's work that he was stupid and wrong? No. I gave my analysis of it. I never said THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, because clearly we're dealing with opinion here. Funny how you didn't tell the guys who like Bay's style and gave similarly detailed explanations to shut up. Conclusion: You're too fucking stupid to come up with a logical defense of Bay yourself and to dispute my points, so of course you criticize me for doing something that every other talkback on this board does: Give his opinion. Hell, I went one step further than most and actually gave reasons to support my opinions. If you're too much of a cry baby to accept dissenting opinions, then too fucking bad. That's your problem. SECOND, practically EVERY goddamn news outlet that has ever reported on Armageddon has talked about its budget being AT LEAST in the $140 million range. And you're a fool if you think Variety is going to print accurate information. They're well-known for regurgitating studio spin-control (Disney stock is taking a beating right now don't you know). You're naive to think otherwise. But hell, if you believe everything in print is fucking gospel, then how do you explain this article? http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/eo/19991119/en/19991119102.html Relevant part: "If the $145 million budget holds...Pearl Harbor would be Hollywood's most intentionally pricey flick, topping Armageddon (another Disney venture) by $10 million." This was printed on Friday, Nov. 19th, 1999, on Yahoo Headline News which takes its news feeds from Variety, E! Online, Reuters and Associated Press. So which is it then? $98 million? $135 million? And remember, the real price is NEVER revealed. You only get what they want you to know, and I don't think going over-budget is something companies like to announce. For detailed discussion about Armageddon and its budget, you can check out David Poland's column archives at http://www.roughcut.com from around the time of Armageddon's release. He's a Hollywood Insider reporter type, maybe you'll believe him. However, most likely you'll believe whatever fits with what you want to believe, regardless of the AVALANCHE of dissenting information.
Nov. 22, 1999, 6:26 p.m. CST
by Wesley Snipes
I mean geez! $42 million to get the number of TV and print ads that that movie had? Are you nuts? Take for instance, the Sega Dreamcast system. That had a $100 million promotional budget. I have not seen a third as many TV ads for this system and its games as I saw for Armageddon. We haven't even started talking about the movie trailer ad space, the countless bus stop ads, the billboards, you name it. All them running for months. Yet, somehow you expect us to believe that it only cost $42 million to promote Armageddon? Please! And what about the cost of promoting it overseas in every territory it opened? Believe me, don't believe me, but I think you're naive or lying.
Nov. 23, 1999, 2 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
First I have no problem whatsoever with anyone giving their opinion about ANYTHING on this site-- what I have an issue with is when you or anyone else try to dismiss a differing view from yours as if it is meaningless and doesn't deserve print-- of course I'm not gonna criticize someone from giving a detailed explanation of why they like Bay's work-- I like it myself and a particular opinion like that needs to be heard when the overwhelming flak on this talback is against Bay... and previously I said that "Armageddon" had cost in the range of $140 million-- and that price has been thrown around all over newsprint since the film was released so that's not being disputed-- but their is NO FUCKIN' WAY "Armageddon" only made $100 million in profit... and I notice you didn't factor in the tv rights-- both cable and network...
Nov. 23, 1999, 3:14 p.m. CST
by The Monitor
And I paraphrase when you wrote: "if you think everything written is gospel..."; chief, I don't know if you realize this or not-- so I'll point it out to you: WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU GET ALL YOUR INFORMATION FROM?!? I think it's the media if I'm not mistaken-- so the info you spew at us here could be wrong!!!!(from you?!?nahhhh!!!!) but you don't question that when it serves to help you TRY to prove whatever rant you put up on this talkback... now I ask you-- who really may not be naive-- but LYING?????
Dec. 6, 1999, 9:07 p.m. CST
So who will be doing the majority of the visual effects work? ILM or Dreamquest (or The Secret Lab)? In today's Hollywood Reporter, it is reported that ILM will be doing the Pearl Harbor attack...Interesting...