An Open Letter To Michael Bay

Recommended Videos

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
This is an open letter to Director Michael Bay, the man behind such major motion pictures as Bad Boyz, Bad Boyz II, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, and Transformers. You are free to add as much pro or con Michael Bay stuff as you like. We're not actually going to send it to him, but let's see what you all think. I'll start first.


Dear Mr. Bay,

I write to you after slogging through your most recent released film, Transformers. It might be too late, but I have only just seen it, as the options for HBO On Demand tonite were either your movie, or the original film version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and I did grapple with the decision for a good five minutes) and, let me be clear, I would not have paid money to see your film (my cable provider has generously provided us with HBO On Demand free for 1 year for switching to digital early). Now, I was a fan of Transformers growing up, as well as it's spin-off series Beast Wars. And I just have one thing to say to you: Please Stop.

I understand that Transformers, being Japanese in origin, a people who traditionally have a radically different culture than us Americans, can be hard to understand and may have lost something in translation from it's original animated version to the live-action film. I believe it was plot. Yes, I realize, the 30 minute episodes weren't exactly constructed like a Faulkner novel, but they still had more sense and reason than what you made. I realize also that you may have some difficulty with the concept behind plot, seeing as how it often goes more than two minutes without exploding, but I still see no reason to cut all of it from your film. What I watched was unrelenting action, occasionally punctuated with references to the TV show for the fanboys, and on one horrendous occasion, an allusion to your own movie, included with nonsensical camera cuts during the action so that I got more face time with Shia LaBeouf (usually cowering, or enduring life-ending injuries with only minor scratches) during fight scenes than with the actual Transformers who were fighting. There's a reason the show was called Transformers and not "Spike/Sam Witwicky ft. Some Giant Robots From Space."

I know, I know, your previous attempt at a plot-driven storyline, Pearl Harbor was perceived as a commercial disaster. This may be because the war-movie/love-triangle story is about as old and tired as it was in 1970, and it was already in the ground then. You know what would've been a good story? A movie entirely about Cuba Gooding Jr's character. But the ship has sailed on that one. No pun intended. Also, I would've killed Ben Affleck's character off, because it was the less predictable of the two. And you already let him live in Armageddon.

Speaking of Armageddon, I take fault with it too. Not too long ago, I got Deep Impact out of the library, and I have to say, you (and your writing team) are hacks in comparison. I understand one of your writers was JJ Abrams, so I'm not surprised. Besides the concept of oil rig workers going into space being ridiculous (especially the part where the obese guy passes his health tests, which I assume he must have), and the 168 scientific inaccuracies that NASA has discovered, whereas in your movie, humanity seems content to (paraphrasing from another sci-fi movie) "go silently into the night," the general populace in Deep Impact have no such calm with their own demise, instead behaving as a species confronted with their own extinction might (ie. violence).

You ought to be ashamed. If your talent took liquid form, it wouldn't fill a thimble.

Good Luck in Your Future Endeavors,
HobbesMkII


PS. wgreer's post about Sector 7 has reminded me about one of my initial gripes with watching the Transformers. It is this: Why the fuck did you do that to John Turturro?!!
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
... Hey... i liked transformers...

If he had tried to string a more in-depth plot onto the movie (there was one there, denial of this is just plain unhelpful) he would have letters screaming for the transformers he produced in this reality.

Oddly enough, he set out not to please you (i dont mean this as an attack, but it comes off that way... respond however you choose) but to make money and produce a movie.

He made squillions

As for as his objective is concerned, he succeeded.

Now, sure, the man is not perfect, but should we do to him what we do to the games industry, have a towering standard and rage at every failure to achieve that standard? or should we remember where we came from and celebrate the good?

Like spoiled children, we whine over the wrinkle in the gold leaf wrappers on our candy. If i need to explain that... to anyone... it may be too late.
 

GoblinOnFire

New member
Jul 28, 2008
174
0
0
Ask him what happened after "The Rock"... That was a decent movie, In my opinion. (Although the person in charge of casting Nicolas Cage should've been forced to watch the whole "Pacific Blue: Season 3" DVD in one sitting while being eaten alive by Pirahnas...)
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Ultrajoe post=18.68372.626624 said:
... Hey... i liked transformers...

If he had tried to string a more in-depth plot onto the movie (there was one there, denial of this is just plain unhelpful) he would have letters screaming for the transformers he produced in this reality.

Oddly enough, he set out not to please you but to make money and produce a movie.

He made squillions

As for as his objective is concerned, he succeeded.

Now, sure, the man is not perfect, but should we do to him what we do to the games industry, have a towering standard and rage at every failure to achieve that standard? or should we remember where we came from and celebrate the good?
Okay, I'll admit there was a plot (the exaggeration was for effect). It consisted of, as I understand it, "Government misunderstands intent of alien beings, but luckily there's this kid who does" (ie. E.T., if there was an evil ET hunting the good one) and also had a subplot of "Megan Fox is a hottie."

As to what he set out to achieve... I don't get it. I should applaud him for sacrificing his art because he's money grubbing?
 

smallharmlesskitten

Not David Bowie
Apr 3, 2008
2,645
0
0
Michael Bay.....

Where to start.

Your Transformers movies was, as we say in the ghetto, Utter shit-biscuits.... with a dollop of ejaculate on top.

Not only was there none, and i repeat NONE, of the greater characters from the original show or any of the remakes like the Minicons series, by the way to all reading Minicons rule, you decided to turn it into a love story between Shia la moron and what looks like Angelina Jolie's younger sister after a boob-job.

Transformers is not about love. it is meant to be about the struggle between AutoBots and Deciptikons. I realise that the 'lurve' is a convenient way to keep the plot going but I would have to say that if it existed, 'The Girl' would win the award for most crowbarred in love interest. To fit her in I would say you used about 10 tubes of KY Jelly and all you did was turn her into even more of a slut. "ooh he has a mustang.....

Stick to the real story behind the real anime.

And on a side note. Stop making the sequel! Please.........

--smallharmlesskitten
 

fulano

New member
Oct 14, 2007
1,685
0
0
The movie was ok, in my book. But I gotta tell you, "Carnosaur", "Death Race 2000", and "Lionheart" were ok too, so that pretty much tells you I enjoy watching crap. Still, the movie was kinda like bastardformers instead of transformers, and made enough entertainment(albeit a shallow one)and dough to guarantee a sequel. The movie was not made for the fans at all but rather for a new audience. That's it.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
HobbesMkii post=18.68372.626647 said:
Ultrajoe post=18.68372.626624 said:
... Hey... i liked transformers...

If he had tried to string a more in-depth plot onto the movie (there was one there, denial of this is just plain unhelpful) he would have letters screaming for the transformers he produced in this reality.

Oddly enough, he set out not to please you but to make money and produce a movie.

He made squillions

As for as his objective is concerned, he succeeded.

Now, sure, the man is not perfect, but should we do to him what we do to the games industry, have a towering standard and rage at every failure to achieve that standard? or should we remember where we came from and celebrate the good?
Okay, I'll admit there was a plot (the exaggeration was for effect). It consisted of, as I understand it, "Government misunderstands intent of alien beings, but luckily there's this kid who does" (ie. E.T., if there was an evil ET hunting the good one) and also had a subplot of "Megan Fox is a hottie."

As to what he set out to achieve... I don't get it. I should applaud him for sacrificing his art because he's money grubbing?
No, that came out wrong.

You should understand that he cant make everyone happy, its like pleasing fans with LOTR, Transformers as we, the fans, wanted it... was not a good film for all.

What drove me mad in the film was that every Transformer fight was a mess of sparks and rolling metal close-ups. That could have been done better.
 

S.R. Kilvan

New member
Dec 29, 2007
27
0
0
The Transformers issue is the same with a lot of movie re-hashing that has been going on for quite some time now. The focus, nay, the very appeal that they are selling on is that of style rather than substance. Period, and we're still buying it...
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Ultrajoe post=18.68372.626683 said:
No, that came out wrong.

You should understand that he cant make everyone happy, its like pleasing fans with LOTR, Transformers as we, the fans, wanted it... was not a good film for all.

What drove me mad in the film was that every Transformer fight was a mess of sparks and rolling metal close-ups. That could have been done better.
Oh, okay. But to be fair, I think Jackson's movies were significantly better pleasing to even the fans who've read the stuff that's not in the Hobbit and the LOTR books, than Bay's Transformers. And sure, there's a lot more DEPTH to LOTR than Transformers, but I still think it speaks to Jackson's ability over Bay's. And I'm totally with you about the fight scenes. I'll bet it saved them money on CGI though.
 

Max Hegel

New member
Aug 10, 2008
10
0
0
1: The Transformers was an American show. Made by Americans. Written by Americans. It was based on a set of toys made by a Japanese company. Yet, make no mistake, it was always AMERICAN.

Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transformers_(TV_series)

Note, "written and recorded in America."

Here: http://www.ntfa.net/ntfa/g1/eplist.php

Note the names, do they seem Japanese?

2: As a fan of the original series, I would have quite enjoyed a faithful adaptation of the show into live-action. However, most human beings find the idea of giant transforming robots that speak English fighting evil giant transforming robots that speak English over glowing cubes of magic goo called "Energon" in order to control a distant planet populated by giant transforming robots that speak English utterly bat-shit insane. Every second of exposition explaining this would have been laughable and possibly even, (for fans of the show) masturbatory.

So, in order to make a movie that would be profitable, and perhaps even allow the plebeians to know how cool Giant Transforming Robots That Speak English fighting evil Giant Transforming Robots That Speak English really is, Michael Bay wisely decided to make a movie about a "dude with a problem".

3: Now, again, as a fan of the original show, I am in a position to see that Michael Bay added nothing to the "Transformers" as a property other than "Live-Actionyness" and "Michael Bayness". But criticizing the movie for not adding anything new would be silly. It effectively conveyed every great thing about the show, removed a lot of stupid things (My god, am I the only one that remembers how stupid that show often was?) and made a movie that showed people that "Transformers" were "Cool".

Don't overlook that simply because you walked into the movie already thinking Transformers were cool. You went in accepting a reality in which Giant Transforming Robots battle Evil Giant Transforming Robots. You already believed in Optimus Prime, already feared Megatron and thought Starscream was an annoying twit.

Those are all INSANE and BRILLIANT ideas. It's an incredibly imaginative world that Michael Bay recognized as such and did justice to. To criticize him for not making a faithful adaptation of the series is ridiculous. The series is over, was a product of the '80s (an American one), and is best left there. It exists now as a library of incredibly imaginative ideas for future creative teams to access.

The 2007 Transformers used many of those brilliant ideas from the show, making them real. And just because you remember something cool from the '80s that had all those ideas in it, doesn't mean that this new thing doesn't have any good ideas, it just means that Michael Bay is smart enough to recognize that he isn't going to come up with anything better than Optimus Prime fighting Megatron to the death, saying "At the end of this day, one shall stand, and one shall fall."

Finally, I will say: "I want to see Unicron in Transformers III."

Also: "I want to see Fin Fang Foom in Iron Man III, but I'm not holding my breath."
 

Eiseman

New member
Jul 23, 2008
387
0
0
While I don't agree that Micheal Bay ruined the Transformers movie (I thought it was still good in spite of its clueless director) I am in full agreement that Bay just needs to fucking stop. It's totally fine to develop a plot and characters that are more accessible to a movie audience, and that's what I fully expected going in. But Micheal Bay just doesn't know how to do that, and it was only by the grace of certain key actors that it didn't turn into a big clusterfuck.

So yeah, Bay got lucky. Transformers was a good film in spite of Bay himself. And I doubt lightning will strike twice.
 

jackiebrown22222

New member
Jun 5, 2008
91
0
0
Firstly, I believe that the movie would have been so much better if Bay and Spielberg switched places, that is Spielberg directing and Bay producing.

Secondly, you guys are talking about Michael Bay developing better plots? This is MICHAEL BAY, the guy who's sexual fantasies include explosions, car chases, and people shooting at things that go BOOM! The day that he makes a movie with a deeper plot than a Steven Segal movie is the day that I will strip naked and swim through a lake full of battery acid.

All that said, I really do like his movies. They're rediculous and overblown, and it's hard to deny that he makes some pretty damn entertaining action movies.
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
I'm not really criticizing Bay for not just making a live action version of the television show. I think that Transformers, as a movie, was terrible. I won't deny that there were times where I felt involved, but a good soundtrack will do that every time. And Bay is really good with cutscenes of military folks speaking jargon with an uplifting score playing behind them. Every time I saw one of those (and there were a goodly number) I was like "Yah! Let's go kick some Decipti-can!" and then they'd all get blown up. I'm saying that in terms of a film, it was down near the bottom of the barrel. I mean, I know that something based on an 80s TV show isn't gonna win an Oscar, but seriously, it was bad in terms of comparable action and sci-fi films. I would say worse than the Matrix Sequels (the 2nd one, at least, I haven't actually had the motivation to see Num. 3) and Live Free or Die Hard.
 

dukeh016

New member
Jul 25, 2008
137
0
0
/second

I don't know how you go wrong with giant robots fighting, but I suppose the best place to begin would be Shia LaBouf. If I wanted to watch a pansy I would turn on the homevideos.
 

luckshot

New member
Jul 18, 2008
426
0
0
the explanation of how the transformers came to be annoyed and confused me, to the point of ruining the movie for me

so a cube goes to a deserted planet, creates robots out of...what?...sand? then leaves
so their is no creation of new transformers with out the cube? the cube adds functions/weapons to devices that did not have them prior (ie missile carrying cell phone, articulated joints)?

that and how can a robot die, cant you just put him back together/replace parts?

so the cube means it's not like "batteries not included"...no robot sex?