Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

The Fate of Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR in trouble'

Hey folks, Harry here. I've been receiving letters from folks out there that have read the recent stories about the alleged problems that caused Joe Roth to leave DISNEY. And the rumor has had it that Head Mousketeer, Michael Eisner, was upset about PEARL HARBOR, and that was the source of the sudden retirement of Joe Roth. It has then been speculated in the media... as well as from people out there in the world that this meant TROUBLE for Michael Bay's film... Like read this letter from 'Teenager'...

Hey Harry, Teenager here. Looks like "Pearl Harbor," originally known as "Tennessee" is in trouble. The script by Randall Wallace was originally going to be produced by Disney; but with the recent departure of top exec Joe Roth, it looks like the film may not be made after all, at least, nor for awhile. Speculation around the Disney lot is that Disney will balk at shelling out the big bucks needed to make this film without the supervision of Joe Roth.

Just thought you might like to know.

-Teenager

Well... That would be 'SPECULATION'... The truth is... Pearl Harbor (aka TENNESSEE)is still set to begin shooting in Hawaii on April 10th. Michael Bay and crew are currently in the midst of meeting with a wide array of actors and actresses, and it's looking like some casting is almost ready to go forward. They will be shooting in Hawaii for 6 weeks, before moving production to Baja, California for additional shooting. Recently Michael Bay was in Texas taking a look at an old Aircraft Carrier, and the film is being made. So, while Roth MAY have very well left Disney over some heated discussion with Eisner, (Which I Do Not Know), whatever happened between Eisner and Roth... It seems it will have NO effect upon the film or the film's future. And this is confirmed.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:03 a.m. CST

    My Top Ten Of 99, and some comments

    by Clockwork Taxi

    Top Ten Films of 99. 1. American Beauty 2. Fight Club 3. The Talented Mr. Ripley 4. Magnolia 5. Arlington Road 6. Any Given Sunday 7. Go 8. The Green Mile 9. Dogma 10. The Matrix If this movie can get Gwenyth Paltrow, it might be worth looking at. Oh hell, who am I kidding! I'll see the movie if they get Molly Ringwald as the lead! Peace out.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:36 a.m. CST

    I'm Boycotting Disney

    by D12-Beowulf

    Ever since Disney's been trying to push {rincess Mononoke out of the theaters as quickly as possible, I've decided to openly ignore ANYTHING that is Disney. Ive' thrown away the tee-shirts that my ex-girlfriend has given me, I've given away any Disney film I've once owned, and I've made it a point to never visit Disneyland/world ever again in my lifetime. Why does Disney have to follow the same formula of animation film making? Just because the guy who did Mononoke wanted to bring out an old brand of animated storytelling (one without all of the stupid pink elephants and talking Rosie O'Donnel gorilla crap) shouldn't make Disney run rampant with indignance. It should make them re-evaluate how they've presented their animated films as a whole. But no, they still want a silly song and dance and a stupid love story that's more cheese than Sailing the Seas of Cheese. //d12-beowulf

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Disney is the DEVIL

    by SnifflesQ

    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. It's not enough that they make those icky sticky animated pieces of trash as a way to sell Happy Meals, but with very few exceptions, EVERY live-action film they've ever made has been unwatchable at best. They want to take over the world. Pretty soon you'll have to have a special computer chip implanted under your skin to gain entry to any Disney picture. Or at least that's what I heard on Christian TV. These are the last days, my friends.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:55 a.m. CST

    Deja Vu?

    by Lazarus Long

    Hmmm...I'll bet Michael Bay will give us a visceral and realistic depiction of the attack, which will be followed by some stereotypical characters, some cliche plot devices, and will end with a lot of flag waving, mourning the lives lost but championing the spirit of the American fighting machine. Maybe bookended by scenes with an old survivor of the battle. Oh wait, wasn't this done not too long ago?

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Breakdown of "Pearl Harbor"

    by Celluloid Monkey

    Pearl Harbor from any other company..... decent flick. Pearl Harbor from Disney? Hmm lets see..... Michael Ironside as the tough as nails, Sgt. Rock type commander who leads the flick, frequently seen shouting orders with the word "DAMN!" interspersed throughout. James VanDerBeek as the inexperienced farmboy corporal who's destined to be a hero(with a tender side). Matthew Lillard as the wise-cracking company goofball who learns that he can actually pull through in a crisis and be a man. Will Smith...... token black character. And finally Petty Officer Debbie Mazzar, local tail that trades witty double-entendres with base personal and then turns out to be an unlikely savior when the need arises. Oh Disney, your cookie-cutter films will bury us all. Or, to use a cookie-cutter response, YOU SO CRAAAAZY!

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Let's hope...

    by Achilles

    Let's pray that this thing gets killed before it gets started. There are few directors more ill-suited to direct a World War II flick than Michael Bay. Pearl Harbor is a subject that must be treated with a due sense of reverence. Mr. Bay's Aerosmith-video, lowest common denominator style of filmmaking would be no less than a travesty, a charletan's attempt to capitalize on one of the most important events in American history.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Ungratefull bastards

    by SCOTT1458

    While I agree that I wouldn't want Disney or Bay to come within miles of this film, some of you bastards need to get your fat asses to the Pearl Harbor Memorial and see the film of what happened. Headless bodies floating up to the surfance, arms, legs all over the battlefield... Sometimes I do think all those young "idealistic" young boys died for nothing.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 9:51 a.m. CST

    **The GiantRobot Report**

    by GiantRobot

    From what my sensors have gathered, Bay has taken some creative liberties with the facts surrounding the historical attack. Rather than the Japanese,a GIANT ASTEROID attacks Pearl Harbor in Bays new film. This is more or less the prequel to his brilliant masterpiece Armageddon.Disney has also made the decision to use animated purple talking gorillas voiced by Rosie Odonell to prortray the American soldiers stationed at the ill fated Naval Base.Although the primary photography has not yet begun, you CAN pick up your purple gorllia GI Happy Meals NOW at any participating McDonalds,and the Aerosmith soundtrack album at your neighborhood Walmart.This is GiantRobot...out!

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Bring it on

    by Joe Buck

    I'm not a Bay fan, but I'd love to see somebody take a crack at a war film with that kind of dough. I like movies like Tora, Tora, Tora and Midway and am glad that the big, epic approach to filmmaking is coming back.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 11:34 a.m. CST

    I read a draft of PEARL HARBOR and

    by STAX

    I have a review of it up on my site FlixBurg if you're interested at all. Yes, this is a shameless plug for my site but it is totally appropriate given what we are talking about. :) Personally, I found the draft of PH I read to be a profound disappointment, which really stunned me because I thought it might be great. http://welcome.to/flixburg OR http://members.xoom.com/FlixBurg/

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 12:03 p.m. CST

    "Tora Tora Tora" was cool

    by Powerslave

    Especially if you consider most of the attack was done "live," so to speak; hardly any FX sequences at all. Even by today's standards, that lengthy attack scene was very well done. Hmmmm...hardly any Michael Bay bashing so far. Oh well. The day is still young...

  • So, they want to meld a character driven romance with a great historical event. This could be a good war movie, but boy oh, boy, could/would/should ought to be the mantra of the avid film geek. From what I gather of Stax's review of the original script, this thing just seems like it's teetering between being a disaster movie or a movie disaster, but I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt for now.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Bay and pearl harbor

    by nelson

    First, the script STAX read was a very OLD script, in fact, it was a rough draft. Anyway, when speaking to Michael Bay, he told me he has no intentions of this movie looking like The Rock or Armageddon. In fact, he told me: "It's gonna be a serious movie."

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Michael Bay: Uber-hack.

    by Lightstormer

    Want a little more info on this whole thing? Check out <<Reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential>> I read this last Friday and practically laughed myself into an apoplectic seizure. Michael Bay trying to make a substantial, dramatic epic is like Van Damme lobbying for best actor of the decade. When is this guy gonna realize that, no matter how much you yell at your cast and crew, nor how well you can edit a trailer, YOU'RE STILL NOT JAMES CAMERON. Any director that could read the script for Armageddon (by that other hack, Jonathon "Die Hard 3" Hensleigh,) and say, "Oh my GOD! I must make this film! I was *born* to make this film!" obviously was sick the day they taught filmmaking at film school. Has anyone read the script for The Rock? IT SUCKED. The *movie* was good; don't get me wrong. I believe Connery insisted on re-writes (way to go, Sean,) and Nic Cage, egotist though he may be, really added a certain humor to his character that was never originally written in. However, the *shitty* script is the one Bay aggreed to make when he signed on. What about "Bad Boys?" I don't know... I guess some people liked it, but I wasn't too impressed. Armageddon was such a god-awful, painfully horrible, nut-filled turd of a flick. Does anyone remember the news that, when it debuted at Cannes, the audience was LAUGHING as the credits rolled? And this was Bay's big attempt at emotional storytelling. ("Do you SWEAR on your daughter's life, on my FAMILY's lives, that you can make 800 feet?!" "I swear to you... <10 minute speech while the warhead's timer is at 33 seconds." "Then LET'S SHUT OFF THIS BOMB!") As for Randall Wallace... now, I loved BraveHeart. It's one of my top 5 of all time. But it had Mel. Mel knows movies. That's why he refused to do the film until an acceptable draft of the script was written. So... no offense to Wallace, but... anything Michael Bay has his heart set on is nothing but a big red flag to me. And the budget STARTS at $145 MILLION?!?!?! Where the hell do you people get your crack? Damn right Roth got the axe for that one. Eisner knows what he's doing. Well, except that he hasn't scrapped the whole damn project already. I swear to Christ... Michael Bay has such a burning desire to be Cameron (as noted in the commentary track on "The Rock" LD, as well as the Reel.com article,) but if he really wants to be anywhere NEAR Jim, he's got to learn a few simple things. Like what? Oh, I don't know... story, plot, characters. That kind of frivolous detail.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 4:26 p.m. CST

    yep it's me raygun...

    by nelson

    And Magnolia sucked the big one. The Talented Mr Ripley Rocks.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 5:18 p.m. CST

    This film is what's wrong with Hollywood

    by Funmazer

    It's so obvious. Pitch meeting: "In Titanic, they sunk 1 ship. Let's sink 40!" "Saving Private Ryan made a lot of money!" "Armaggedon made money so it musta been good! Gimme the biggest pre-approved budget(?) (read: DIASTER) ever!" This is so typical. Bigger effects, let's out-do the last guy, check the NRG, get the numbers, stick in current hot actor X, hot actress Y, stick in cheesy Top 40 song, boom, we're done. It was obvious (and I also read) that the 'romance' element of Armaggedon was pumped up after the success of Titanic. So, here's Bay again, trying to make a 'chick' flick. Now, as the only remaining person on this site who still likes "Titanic", I'd like to point out that Cameron always had strong female roles in all his films, which led up to why Titanic was such a chick flick. Anyway. Bay wants to be Cameron. Problem is- HE ISN'T! Well, I guess this is better than that "Hindenburg" remake they talked about a while back... But still, just like The Patriot IT WILL SUCK! But I bet you'll all go anyway. SO STOP COMPLAINING!

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Thanks for reminding me, Funmazer.

    by Lightstormer

    FM pointed out the "love story" in Armageddon was emphasized after the success of Titanic. Way true. I remember the horror of reading in Premiere Magazine how all the big releases of 1998 were supposedly being promoted towards a new, "dramatic, character-driven" angle because of a certain billion-dollar epic. Not so bad an idea, inherently... until you consider they were referring to things like "Godzilla" and --naturally-- "Armageddon." Anyone see the trailer for that piece of shit? From the very start, the voice-over is going on and on about true love being torn apart by a horrible, perilous twist of fate. (Those marketing bastards at Disney even lifted Graeme Revill's "Pain And Retribution" cue off the Crow soundtrack for the music!) If this sorry excuse for storytelling is Bay's answer to Titanic, --or, even more so, this fountain of bad ideas on the way known as "Pearl Harbor"-- then I guess this is the best Bay has to offer. He was done a long time ago. Stick a fork in the wannabe bastard.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 7:50 p.m. CST

    MY TWO CENTS

    by mistamind

    Personally, I thought Magnolia to be one of the best films of 1999, if not the best film. Also, I believe Talented Mister Ripley to be one of the worst films of the year. A lot of people out there are praising the film for it's wonderful storyline and gripping characters, but i loathed the whole thing. The plotline was drab and boring. The acting seemed wooden, with the noteable exceptions of Jude Law and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. And I never felt any remorse for the Ripley character. Fuck him! He's a loathesome monster. He killed out of convenience, not because he's cold blooded. That's what pisses me off about him! He can't take responsibility for his actions, and so others have to suffer. He's a disgusting example of themodern human being and it's dispicable! Fuck Anthony Minghella! While I'm at it, I believed The English Patient to suck, as well. It was not worthy of the best picture oscar! But then again, I think that Oscars are a degrading aspect of our society, that feels the need to publicly say 'you're better than him!' 'you're better than her!' Awards make me sick. This is my opinion, and does not reflect the views of anybody else but myself.

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Lightstormer's first post

    by Lazarus Long

    I agree with you 100% on your opinion of Michael Bey, but aspiring to be James Cameron isn't exactly a noble goal. One more reason to have no respect for him. As for Cameron having story, character, plot, I sure hope you're not talking about Titanic. Titanic is the perfect example for a film with a lot of fireworks and no substance. Easy target; you're obviously going to feel sorry for the victims of the diaster (well, some of them were snobs), but the only depth of character was found in Kate Winslet's attempt to put some life into the terrible dialogue. Cameron may have made some great films in the past (The Abyss, Terminator), but Titanic is a Michael Bey period piece! What's the fucking difference between this and Armageddon. Cameron makes George Lucas' dialogue sound like David Mamet's. Until I see Cameron's next film I have only to conclude that the Oscar has validated what he did: give us a film with two dimensional archetypes as characters and hang them on a skeleton story, disguising all with money, money, money. Fuck him. This is worse than any claim against Lucas, because for his faults at least Lucas has a goddamned imagination and doesn't proclaim "I'm king of the world!!!"

  • Jan. 17, 2000, 11:25 p.m. CST

    is it me...

    by nelson

    or are there some people that treat entertainment a little bit *too* serious? Lighten up people, they're ONLY movies...jeez. Jealous 'casue your immortal concept of a film doesn't get a $145 million plus budget? Or are you guys REALLY worried about the regular Joe/Jane that will put down $9 to watch A Michael Bay Film? Or let me see..hum...what are movies SUPPOSED to be about? What is the "ideal" movie? I hear sooo many rants about "what's wrong with Hollywood," "Or this movie/actor/director suck, etc." Why doesn't someone here in talkback put their money where their mouth is and come up with the best script ever? Jeez, I,m in a very good mood. Fuck, aspiring to be James Cameron not a noble goal??? I'd direct anything to get my hands on that wallet...idealism, idealism, idealism.

  • Jan. 18, 2000, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Fuck Pearl Harbour Already!!!!

    by Mr Logic

    Jesus I am sick of hearing about American war exploits!!!!! I know I am leaving my self wide open here for flames but I am just fucking sick of truth distorting self centered American war films. Consider the name Seacond world war for a seacond. Anyone notice the word WORLD in there? This is just the word Hollywood chooses to ignore by portraying only American themed storys as if they were the be all and end all of the war and the fact that oohhh say 20 million Russians died reppeling the Nazis wasnt as imporatant as an American Naval facility being bombed. I hope you realise that we in other countries (especially here in Australia) laugh loudly and fully at the sort of patriotic crap that Hollywood churns out. Even Saving Private Ryan wasnt well recived here it had realistic battle scenes sure but the rest was the standard Flag waving shite we are used to. Wake up Yanks there is a whole world out there with millions more stories far more compelling and interesting than Hollywood.

  • Pray God, Mr. Eisner stop this madness while there's still time!

  • Jan. 18, 2000, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Re: Fuck pearl Harbor

    by comet14

    I had to say something to the ignorant person who left the incredibly bad and HORRIBLY misspelled message about "FUCK Pearl Harbor." I'd like to remind him of two things: 1) Is it a big surprise that American Film companies make war movies about AMERICANS? Yes, the Russians lost more people than anyone in WWII, but what the hell does that have to do with making films? 2) Let me remind you, my ignorant friend, that if America hadn't fought in the war against the Japanese, Australia would probably right now be under the control of Imperial Japan. In other words, WE SAVED YOUR SORRY ASS! And why did we enter the war? Pearl Harbor. So yes, it's just a little more than just a naval base being bombed, it's the beginning of the end of the Second World War!!!!

  • Jan. 18, 2000, 3:28 p.m. CST

    To Laz, Nelson, & Griffin

    by Lightstormer

    Laz: Hey now... I aspire to be Cameron! (Like the name?) However, I would never want the "tyrant" reputation that he's aquired. I believe you have to be respectful to the people that work for you every bit as much as to the people for whom you work. At any rate, I admire him because he's a genius, which most people may argue, but most people haven't learned as much about the man as I have. Have you ever read any of his scripts? It's like the guy's a walking encyclopedia. Plus that, he's a philosopher, a poet, a student of the human condition, and he's got an excellent sense of humor. This might not come across as clearly in all of his movies, but you have to hear it straight from the man himself in a lot of cases. And if anyone says I'm full of shit, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I like what I like and its name is Cameron. Now, as for Titanic's ever-criticized lack of character or plot, I have to admit I found The Abyss much deeper (no pun intended) in such respects. Titanic wan't *all* substance, though. You have to admit there is something profound about human arrogance and faith in technology ending the lives of 1500 people. And about the ugly idea of wealth *still* determining worth of a person even when the end is near. (First class people saved first, third class has to wait to see if they live.) What if the Titanic was looked at as a microcosm of social structure? The end is coming, and people are still so small-minded as to imagine distinctions of "high-class" and "low-class" between human beings? How retarded is that? OK, I'm getting REALLY off the subject by now.... (I would just like to mention that William Goldman himself said Titanic should have won Best Screenplay that year, admittedly not for dialogue, which most people mistake as writing, but for the story structure itself. *That's* what writing is all about, really.) As for Jim's dialogue, I'll grant you he writes better for marines petrified by killer aliens in the future than two love-struck teens in the 1900's. But has anyone ever questioned his characters' words before his one and only period piece? One rotten apple.... And Cameron has no imagination?! What are you talking about?! He created some of the best s/f films of the past two decades! And I know Aliens was a sequel, but look what he did for the Alien universe! The queen, the powerloaders, the colonial marines, the weaponry... that was all his. (God; I really have to change the subject already!) Umm... NELSON: Yes, they're only movies. Perhaps people like me do get carried away with all this ranting and raving. But think about this: Batman and Robin cost $140 million. Speed 2 cost $140 million. Armageddon cost $100 million. The budget for Pearl Harbor STARTS at $145 million. Combined total: $525,000,000. For 3 horrible movies and 1 expectedly horrible one. If you had a half a billion dollars, I'm sure you could find SOMETHING that could benefit the world in some way, shape, or form. Think about how much good could be accomplished with all that money. And where did it go? Shitty movies. Even more than Bay's career, THAT's the kind of thing that bothers me. [I can see the flaming already: "He posts a damn *book* defending CAMERON for Chrissakes, and then whines about money wasted on making movies!" You people will have a point. But Cameron didn't make any of THOSE movies.) And am I mad because my scripts aren't getting that kind of budgets? I wouldn't know what the fuck to DO with a $145 million budget! I could make a fucking trilogy of *trilogies* with $145 mil! I'd probably commit suicide under that kind of pressure. At least, thus far in MY career! GRIFFIN3: Excellent points, all. (And not just because you blasted Bay and complemented Jim!) Film IS an art form and an exploration of humanity, when done well. It can make us explore ideas we never thought of, and feel things that normal life never could. Who can say they NEVER saw a movie that changed their life or made them see something in a new light that stayed with them forever? I think it's the people who say things like "it's only a movie" that keep alive the proliferation of poor quality products from Hollywood. If the public doesn't care, why should the studios? OK. My keyboard is smoking now. I applaud anyone that made it this far down into this post... just Email me a bill for your time and I'll take care of it.

  • Jan. 19, 2000, 12:08 a.m. CST

    point taken, Lightstormer/Patriotism

    by Lazarus Long

    I admire much of Cameron's work, but I get very antagonistic when talking about Titanic, because I resent the fact that it won so many oscars and is the #1 of all time. I'm not a big Gone With the Wind fan, but I feel it is still insulting to say Titanic is written as well. Also, note the fact that the last non-musical best picture winner to not have its screenplay nominated was (I believe) Ben-Hur, which was coincidentally the previous record holder for total Oscars. Also coincidentally it is an overblown piece of fluff, like Titanic. Substitute the ship sinking for the chariot race, it's the classic set piece surrounded by an average film. Ben-Hur was much inferior to something comparable, like Spartacus. The Abyss is one of my all time favorites (although I think the Director's Cut is a bit overdone), and the relationship between Ed Harris and Mary E. Mastrantonio shows Cameron can have some depth when he concentrates on that aspect of the production. Unfortunately, Cameron got so caught up in making every tiny (including things not visible to the moviegoing eye) detail historically accurate he neglected to have someone edit his screenplay (George Lucas syndrome?). As for Pearl Harbor, weren't you just waiting for some asshole like the previous poster to utter one of those "If it wasn't for us you Australians would be speaking Japanese!" comments? Isn't this just the kind of jingoistic crap the Australian dude was talking about? If America was so interested in really helping other countries (not just supplying arms to Britain) why did they wait until Pearl Harbor was bombed to fight against maniacs like Hitler and Mussolini (there are also theories that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen so he could declare war)? Stop acting like the U.S.A. is friend to all nations and responsible for everyone's freedom, when we all know this country looks out for only one thing: itself. How many dictatorships are kept in power because they do business with American corporations? You know what, don't bother answering that. If you want to see a good political film that isn't wrapped up in red white and blue check out Warren Beatty's Reds, one of my personal faves...

  • Jan. 19, 2000, 2:22 a.m. CST

    Re: Comet 14, thanks for proving my point.

    by Mr Logic

    Proves my point perfectly Thank You! You have completley misunderstood the core argument of my post thus demonstarting your ignorance. I wasnt saying that American film companies should make films about the Russian campaign my ignorant freind! What I meant was American films concentrate on American themes and campaigns as if they were the most imporatant and decisive part of the war. When in reality the western front and the Russian counter attack was the definative and most important turing point in the war bar none. The point I was making about the Russian losses was America carries on about its ``sacrifices'' as if they carried the brunt of the burden and other nations were just token participants. America aided in the war sure but only after endless procrastination and only when their shores were actually threatend. ``Australia would probably right now be under the control of Imperial Japan..... WE SAVED YOUR SORRY ASS!'' Again this proves my point perfectly. This is what you have been led to belive by the blatant propaganda that America has been speweing for fifty years now. It doesnt help that one of histroys gratest egos Douglas Macarthur was the commander in the Pacific and took credit for ``saving Australia''. The Pacific campaign was a JOINT OPERATION my ignorant freind. Have you ever heard of the Kokoda trail?? no well do a little research it may provide you with some eye openeing facts about the Australian contribution to the pacific campaign and the losses we suffered. You obviously think that the battle of the Coral sea was what turned the tide in the pacific and ``saved our sorry asses'' Yes it did turn the tide against the japanese but by this time Japan had abandoned invasion plans of Australia due to the land mass and distances involved. What ultimatley ended the war in the pacific was a little invention by a jewish american called the atomic bomb. A device that usered in the cold war and meant the rest of the world had to fear nuclear armaggedon from superpowers like the united states for years to come. Do you now see how your bull headed yankee arrogence gets you into trouble when confronted with the facts? Now mabye you will do a little research and have some respect for the history of others not just your heavily dostorted own.

  • Jan. 19, 2000, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Bay's take on this script

    by kataklysmic

    a director has never been more visciously criticized for a film than Michael Bay was for Armageddon. This Guy was just f***ing beat down over that movie. A director of lesser character might not have even got in the ring again after being so widely trashed. However, Bay is talented and thick skinned, so he will be back and I can guarantee that he will approach this film in a completely different way than he has approached past projects. I am sorry to hear that so many of you were offended by the patriotic images and quick cut editing that Bay presented in Armageddon. Let's not forget that was the top grossing film of 1998--obviously someone wanted to see those things. If you are an American and feel like patriotic images in films insult your intelligence, are a cheap sell, or you are offended by them, please e-mail me and tell me why. I am fascinated by this phenomenon and would love to understand more about it as I, personally, am proud to be an American.

  • Jan. 19, 2000, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Presenting...the D-VIATE award for worst performance by a hack d

    by Sith Lord Byron

    And the nominees are...1) Joel Schumacher, for 8mm...2) Barry Sonnenfeld, for Mild Mild Mess...3) Jan DeBont, for The Haunting...4) Whoever the fuck did Stigmata, for Stigmata...and finally, 5) Oliver Stone, for Any Given Sunday. And the loser is...Oliver Stone for Any Given Sunday! It was a close call, but considering a few of the aforementioned movies did me damage only through their trailers (as I was smart enough not to see them), Any Given Sunday won out by being the most irritating three hours I have spent in a theater this year. If you think you've got what it takes to win the next award for Worst Performance by a Hack Director, simply follow Mr. Stone's example and edit your movie like a crackhead MTV-addict with Attention Deficit Disorder would! Only talent can get between you and your dream!

  • Jan. 19, 2000, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Mr. Logic (or, the same shit I'm hearing in the "U-571" talkback

    by Brundledan

    First of all... Jesus, pal, learn to SPELL. It ain't that hard. Second, your handle is a misnomer, because if you WERE logical you'd realize that the whole world would be screwed if not for the U.S. contribution in World War II - you can scream "JOINT OPERATION!!!" all you want; you'd still have to be blind not to see that AMERICA was the vital component in that joint effort's success. Third, would you like to know what REALLY turned the tide against Japan? MIDWAY, a battle won by - you guessed it - AMERICANS, courtesy of the carriers "Yorktown" and "Enterprise" - carriers which, by the way, might have been damaged or destroyed had they been at their normal berth at PEARL HARBOR on December 7, 1941, in which case you and I both would be waking up in the morning to more than ONE rising sun. Finally, you can rationalize your original statement all you want, but your casually dismissing the sacrifice of 2,400 lives with a callous statement like "Fuck Pearl Harbor!" makes you an ignorant, grade-A, shit-eating asshole in my book. Have a little respect for the brave souls who helped save the world for idiots like you.