Uneasy Lies the Head that Blows Shit Up
Does this man want to make art movies?
While I haven’t been able to sit through all of Bad Boys II or Pearl Harbor (despite getting a free Blu-ray) and the rest of his movies have been joyless, excruciating slogs, this isn’t really another “Michael Bay Sucks” piece. His movies are what they are and people love them to the tune of something like $1 billion domestic and $2.6 billion worldwide not counting toys or DVDs (Box Office Mojo).
No, making fun of Michael Bay movies is too easy. The real question is: why is he starting to sound like such a crybaby all the sudden? He’s gotten exactly what he’s worked very hard for, yet he bristles at the criticism heaped upon him by reviewers and fanboys alike. Worse, I think he actually wants to be taken seriously. In a recent interview, he threatens to make a movie without any of the things he’s famous for: no explosions, no effects and little action – just characters.
No, I’m not kidding.
Though he was relatively undercompensated for his first few films, with Pearl Harbor Bay declined an up front fee in favor of 50% of what remained after the studio recouped production and advertising costs. This deal earned him $40 million (Forbes). A similar deal on Transformers got him $75 million (LA Times). What’s more, he gets 8% of the merchandising revenue on Transformers, second only to George Lucas who gets 15% for Star Wars (Forbes again).
This means a couple of things.
- Michael Bay’s movies exist to make money. If they don’t, neither does he. The more they make, the more he makes and if there’s a merchandising opportunity, so much the better. Why do you think there are 46 robots in the sequel compared to 14 in the original (MichaelBay.com)?
- He’s very good at making these kinds of movies and he’s gotten very rich doing it. Most people can’t resist a Twinkie once in awhile, even those who know they’re no good for them. What’s more, people seem to find Michael Bay’s Twinkies particularly irresistible.
Fine. If you don’t want junk food, you don’t go see a Michael Bay movie and if Michael Bay didn’t want to be filthy rich, he’d probably be in a different line of work. I won’t criticize him for his success, but why can’t he be happy succeeding ridiculously at what he’s set out to do?
In a recent post on his blog, Bay broke the disturbing news that Imax prints of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen would run longer than the regular version to make room for more robot fighting (oh, joy!). Amusingly, he signed the post “Beware haters” like it really sticks in his craw that people think he’s ridiculous and that a bit of extra mayhem is all it would take to mend his reputation.
Then, when asked in a London Times interview about the critical response to his movies, he protested “They review me before they’ve even seen the movie!” Pressed further about whether the attacks hurt, he admited that they do. “Yes. Of Course. Absolutely. ” (cue violin music).
Apparently unable to bear further critical slings and arrows, he claims in the same interview that has a new smaller project on the way. It’s a dark comedy based on a true story he describes as “Very Pulp Fiction-y” with no special effects “just real characters and very little action.”
Basically none of the things he’s good at and all of the things he shows no aptitude for whatsoever.
What a cliché! He’s like a porn star who wants to go legitimate. No longer content to perform the action movie equivalent of double-penetration anal on screen, he wants to be taken seriously! Like he’s George Lucas, he’s bored with his billions and he’s ready to make small, personal art movies now. He wants legitimacy!
Nope. Sorry, sir. You can have all the money you want, but leave artistic respect for the people who earn it. Stick with your Twinkies.
Filed under: Opinion
As always the caption is priceless. ROFL.
He’s terribly, terribly insecure. You can see it in the movies and you can see it in his public persona. I wish he would just do yoga or psychotherapy to resolve his issues instead of taking up money that better filmmakers could be using. Oh well.
Yes there are definitely compensation issues going on with that guy. It’s a little sad really, but I’m not losing any sleep over him.
Michael Bay’s version of Pulp Fiction would have had Vincent find the guy who keyed his Malibu, humiliate him before a mass of spectators, beat him up, steal his girlfriend, then be attacked by him later only to finally kill him by firing two clips’ worth of bullets to a Warren G. song.
(Hm, Tarantino says Butch keyed Vincent’s car. Took me a while to consider that.)
I’ll be the less cynical one and say that half of me is glad that the guy has a desire to prove his critics wrong.
But the other half of me wonders how hopeless this guy is if, in trying to do something innovative, he sets himself to make a film that is reminscent to one of the most imitated films of all times.
I always thought that his defense against Ebert’s criticism of PEARL HARBOR was a look into his small, tortured soul — when he defended his film on the grounds that he actually thought (!) about techniques of the explosions and that Ebert “has watched too many movies.” Oh, the irony of that last defense from him…
I agree it’s maybe good the guy wants to make better movies, but I just don’t think he’s capable. In that same interview, he complains that people just don’t know how hard it is to make his robot movies. He doesn’t get that no one is questioning the physical undertaking…but what’s the point of it all?
Same with his defense against Ebert. He doesn’t really understand the first thing about why some people think his movies suck.
Mind you, I’m not just being anti-junk either. I’m the guy who actually wants to see 2012 now, remember?
He’s in the Criterion Collection, for god sakes. Twice. What more credibility does he want?
You know, folks like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner and Uwe Boll just need to get over themselves. I’m so tired of schlock directors who are all flash and no substance complaining that they don’t get the respect they deserve. Put up or shut up.
Michael Bay can win my respect if he starts donating very large sums of his ridiculous fortune to charity and maybe adding something to society beyond well-lit cleavage, bullets, and explosions.
Otherwise, shut the f$%k up.
Wow…this is one of the most mean-spirited posts I’ve read here in a while.
I’m no fan of Bay, but if he wants to try to make something more substantive then why are we complaining? Isn’t that a GOOD thing? He may not be able to pull it off, who knows? But it’s a step in the right direction. Give him a chance.
You’re doing exactly what he said critics do – reviewing him before you even see the movie.
I’m not judging a movie I don’t think he’ll ever actually make. If he does make it, I’ll judge it accordingly. To say that I don’t think he has it in him isn’t really mean spirited. I acknowledged he’s an amazing success at what he does.
District Attorney: Your Honor, the defendant has raped audiences seven times.
Defense Attorney: Objection! Give him a chance.
Judge Holden: Sustained. It’s my understanding that many in the audience enjoyed getting raped.
Jury: *gasp!*
Twinkies make me feel unwell. Is it mean spirited to declare the fact or to express skepticism that fine cuisine can be made by someone who produces confectionery for the masses?
Combine my argument with sartre’s and you’ll see we’ve accidentally compared the improbable vindication of Michael Bay to the infamous twinkie defense.
Judge Holden’s verdict will not hold up under appeal.
Michael Bay’s ‘diminished capacity’ is inadmissible as an excuse.
Judge Holden will be accused of executing justice.
I know I’ve sang this tune before, but Bay is not THAT bad. And at his best (Bad Boys II) his action scenes have a propulsive, junky hyperbole that’s at least more upfront about what it is than all these silly auteurist action movies we’ve been getting for the last decade or so.
Bay serves his audience what it deserves, er WANTS, but his need to claim some higher level of substance to his efforts is pure hubris. Where’s the mean-spirit in simply calling a spade a spade, or do we need to pretend that every director is pure as fresh snow and that’s it the studio executives that drive them to make commercial drek?
Good luck, Mr Bay, I wish you well and look forward to this substance you speak of coming to a theater soon. Don’t fault me for being skeptical of something he’s shown no aptitude for though.
And to chime in here, I was going to pile on to Craig’s last post and say that Bay’s _not_ an amazing success at what he does, except for in financial terms. Even in terms of popcorn movies, his movies seem incoherent and bloated.
“Bay is not THAT bad.” Yeah, he really is. I couldn’t sit through more than 30 minutes of Bad Boys II so maybe it got better?
Again, this post really wasn’t meant as a referendum on Bay. You like him, or you don’t (I don’t), but the idea of him making a small character driven picture is a joke.
Jeff, I was measuring him on financial terms because as I pointed out that’s why these movies exist. They’re money making machines and they work. I agree with you that they’re bloated and incoherent, I don’t even like his action sequences which are his bread and butter, but people line up for them.