Why are people getting mad at Michael Bay?

[Andrew NDB]

No, he's not the director but anyone of sound mind can clearly tell he's exerting his influence to the nth degree on this production and it's more than a little bit likely that the actual director, Jonathan Liebesman, is serving more in the "puppet director" capacity (ala Anthony Hemingway on Red Tails)... but really, why are people mad at Michael Bay?

TMNT Part 5 isn't some kind of passion project from anyone anywhere with a strong creative vision for their ultimate Turtle movie. It was borne of a studio and financiers and focus groups -- well divorced and free from any sort of veto power from Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird for the first time ever, the creators, it's important to note -- that think they can milk a few extra bucks out of an old tried and true franchise. They have gone over various business models and decided, hey, Michael Bay's guys struck oil with the Transformers movies... let's try and replicate the formula.

So they hired Michael Bay. But again, why is he the bad guy? Is he doing bad by your favorite incarnation of TMNT? Seriously? He's just doing what he's always been doing. If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the suits and beancounters at Viacom above his pay grade, I say.

What say you?

[Jester]

It's more than just Turtles, that's the issue. It stems from what he did to Transformers. The whole "Michael Bay raped my childhood!!!" shtick.

I agree it's silly, but he's an actual face, where as the "suits and bean-counters" remain in the background. So since Bay is out there, he gets all the bile.

[Lord Nightwalker]

I agree with you both. It should be the faceless suits that we hold accountable. But, Bay is in the position of the sacrificial lamb do his involvement on the film and visibility to the public. Then again, he doesn't have to do what he is told to do, he could sneak some good stuff into the film anyway.
But that doesn't seem to be the case. Trying to stay on topic here with out going into a major rant, so I'm just going to shut up now.

[TigerClaw]

I'm not mad at Michael Bay for what he did with Transformers, I'm happy with what he did with it. He took Toys and a TV show that was popular in the 80s and made it into something relevant for today's world.

What I am sick of is those so called fans who are stuck in the past, To them, the only good stuff was when they were children, We are all grown up now and when I look back at the stuff I used to like, I couldnt help and noticed how cheesy it was and how it was made strictly for kids, If we want something brought back from our childhood, I rather they mature it up and make it to appeal, Not to people who grew up with it, But to younger people too.

Because of Michael Bay, Transformers became relevant again and for a new age.

As for TMNT, I always wanted a mature and more edgier version of a movie, and it seems with this, We are getting one. Though the Fred Wolf series was used for inspiration, But that's just more about the look, For the actual movie itself, Don't expect it to be like the Fred Wolf series, But a more mature take on it.

The Turtles in the movie will not act like the Turtles from the 80s cartoon or the current series, I think they will act more like real teenagers.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

TMNT Part 5

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this, but I don't think it's going to catch on.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

...get mad at the suits and beancounters at Viacom above his pay grade, I say.?

The suits and beancounters are FAR below Michael Bay's pay grade.

Personally, I enjoyed the new Transformers movies. They were popcorn movies that looked FANTASTIC. Check your brain at the door. Then again, I was never a fan of the show. I'm withholding judgement on the new TMNT until I see it. Set photos are out of context and trailers can be extremely deceptive. Bay's productions usually have fantastic visuals, so that's really my only expectation. If the movie sucks, I'll walk out of the theater, shake my head, enjoy the fresh air, then go have a beer and pizza. It's not the end of the world. We didn't all have mental breakdowns after the 2007 movie, did we?

[CyberCubed]

Michael Bay is the main reason Megan Fox was cast as April. That's a good reason to be angry with him.

Just think of how many talented young 20 year old ginger hotties could have played April.

[Refractive Reflections]

As Lord Nightwalker pointed out, Jester and Andrew NDB both have points. Even though its the studio company's fault for choosing Michael Bay, I think the fan community was aware there would be some artistic compromise with any big blockbuster, yet the fact is that the studio chose one of the most notorious directors/producers which has already had immense negative critical reception, hanging over like a dark (profitable) cloud. So it forced fans to accept the hard fact, that they would have to most probably lower their expectations on quality, considering Bay's track record.

With the entertainment industry, the biggest problem itself is that you are combining art with business. In most cases, its very rare to have both aspects satisfied without compromising one or the other. On top of that, most entertainment businesses feel safe in choosing models and formulas (as Andrew NDB pointed out here) because they are running a business, and have to make big gains for their investors. Therefore they are less likely to choose something that is artistically bold or complex, when so much money is being put into making the film, and there is a business to run.

But as mad as people or fans want to be at the studio company or Michael Bay, the fact is, the entertainment industry is simply catering to the tastes of the general public. The biggest analogy I can give for these low-quality blockbuster movies is to compare it with fast food. We all know how superficial and bad it is, using the same repetitive ingredients of excessive salt, high fat content, and very little nutritional value (or in the movie's case: lot of action/explosions, significant sex appeal, and a touch of drama, melodrama specifically, with a flat, mentally simple plot), but the cold hard fact is, its what most people want. Otherwise why else would Bay's movies be making so much money when they have choices in their entertainment?

If the public really wanted deep themes, and intellectually engaging material in their movies, we would have most people go out and buy it. (Now I'm not against easy thinking, escapist-type movies, but I'm merely pointing out that these businesses are catering to the public's demand of what entertainment they want.)

And as for what the public wants, and assessing its taste based on Bay's very profitable movies, I'll let Bay's response to the immense criticism be the quintessential conclusion to the public's taste, which says it all, "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime."

[Leo656]

Deep down, it's because fans always hope - somewhat illogically - that when someone takes something they love and adapts it, that the person doing it is like them, a fan, someone who "gets" the property, respects it, cherishes it, has thought about it in-depth like they/we have and will try to do an honest and pure take on it. The problem is, that's not how Hollywood works. Making movies isn't about anything at all other than, "This movie costs $100 million. What can we do to make BACK twice as much?" Anyone working on a TMNT movie at any level, from top to bottom, producer to cable-puller, even if they are or at one point were "A Real Fan", is handcuffed by the fact that they're REALLY only trying to recoup on an investment and nothing more.

Bay and Fox are the names people recognize as the standards of "Brain Dead But Aesthetically-Pleasing Cinema", thus they take all the heat. Neither one of them has ever made what anyone objective would call a "good movie". But their movies DO make money, because she's hot and people like the way Bay makes things blow up. And so when investing $100 million into the TMNT franchise, and trying to figure how to make AT LEAST twice as much back, the studio knows having Bay and Fox attached is a shortcut to Big Money. And as Andrew said, you can't really blame them for following a proven track record of success.

Make no mistake, Bay doesn't give a sh*t about TMNT, and he didn't give a sh*t about Transformers, either. He even said so many times before the first movie, that he knew and cared almost nothing about the property before someone convinced him Transformers could become a franchise that would make billions of dollars, and that changed his mind. You can't exactly fault him for being pragmatic, but I think it's a huge reason why fans hate him so much. They want FANS working on these films, not someone who is openly, blatantly a prostitute. Again, what they're forgetting is that even if someone who WAS a fan was making the movie, their ideas would be completely overruled by whatever the studio wanted to do, anyway.

Because the business of movies is business, not "good movies". Believe it or not, any "good" movie you've ever seen was pretty much a complete accident, if you go back and study how the films were conceived and made. Everything from "Jaws" to Keaton's "Batman" to Chris Reeve's "Superman" and even the original "Star Wars" was nothing less than a complete disaster at every level UNTIL the films were finished, at which point they pleasantly surprised people. But there's too much corporate BS involved in making films to allow a truly "great" product to happen organically. At every single step, someone is telling you to spend less money on something, tweak the script, add or remove a character, "make it be more like (last billion dollar movie that came out)".

All these things are much bigger problems than whoever the director or leading actor or actress is. But people don't think in those terms, they think, "Michael Bay makes bad movies, he's working on TMNT, thus TMNT will be a bad movie, so f*ck him, it's his fault." It's a logic they can understand, so they cling to it despite its flaws. Honestly, if anything history shows us (through the above examples) that even movies that were seemingly doomed to failure from conception CAN become beloved classics. The new TMNT can as well, as long as it's not complete, blatant, pandering trash. (Keep in mind, I'm not at all expecting a classic or, at this point, even a very good movie, my point is it CAN happen despite all contrary evidence)

But it's success or failure won't have anything entirely to do with Bay or Fox, people just choose who to attack based on their limited understanding of how movies are made in general, and the idea that one or two people make that much of a difference to the product when it's all organized and executed by committee, a committee whose only goal is money, not quality.

And I'm still predicting Fox turns out to be one of the best things about the movie, and I'm dead serious and not even talking about how hot she is. ANYONE could play April O'Neil, she's not at all a deep or iconic character and if you ask most people she's as deep as "Reporter, red hair, wears yellow," and frankly anyone could play that part. You can't fault the studio for picking the one actress that they know for a fact people will pay to see in anything. It's just logic, man. If anything she GIVES the movie credibility, not takes it away. Besides (and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this one), anyone objective could tell you that women, by and large, can't act very well. Most of the best-known actresses in movies and TV have nothing but different hair colors and implant sizes separating them. Choosing one over the other from the current pool makes no difference at all. Why NOT go with who will actually draw?

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Exactly what leo656 said. It's because Michael Bay wasn't a fan of transformers, still isn't, and probably never will be.

Same with TMNT. The only reason he is involved is because it will make money.

[BubblyShell22]

Pretty much what Leo said. Because people hate Michael Bay and figure that since he's attached to this film in some way that it's going to be horrible. As for me, I'm just going to wait and see where things go first before I make any judgment. I wouldn't have chosen Fox as April myself, but she's already been cast, and there's nothing to be done about that now.

[plastroncafe]

Really I just really hate the fact that he makes dumb movies with questionable content.

Actually, no, upon a moment of further reflection...I don't hate Michael Bay. That's too strong a word, but I do find his later movies stupid and borderline offensive.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

Pretty much what Leo said. Because people hate Michael Bay and figure that since he's attached to this film in some way that it's going to be horrible. As for me, I'm just going to wait and see where things go first before I make any judgment. I wouldn't have chosen Fox as April myself, but she's already been cast, and there's nothing to be done about that now.

Just asking, who would you choose as April?

[ObiWanFan4life]

Originally Posted by whatswiththeheadbands?

Just asking, who would you choose as April?

I'd Cast Karen Gillan or Mae Whitman: She already looks like April.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Really I just really hate the fact that he makes dumb movies with questionable content.

Actually, no, upon a moment of further reflection...I don't hate Michael Bay. That's too strong a word, but I do find his later movies stupid and borderline offensive.

A thousand times this.

[Pterobat]

Y' might as well ask, "Why do people have emotional responses to things that don't affect them directly?"

People like the Turtles franchise. People see changes made to the Turtles franchise that they don't like. They get mad. Sure, you can take it too far, but a dislike of this is a normal human reaction. It's like when someone dislikes the kiddification of the TMNT franchise, the adding too many mutants, leaving some characters out, etc.

As for why the Bayman is singled out, it's because people don't like his work, independent of "changing things" in their favourite childhood franchises. Maybe he's not responsible for every bit of humour, lighting, casting, shooting, framing and exploding that happens in his movies, but certain things have become Michael Bay's "brand", so it's natural people would hate him for spreading it to other properties.

Also, some believe that their passions, however silly, have more artistic merit than Bay's films, and feel they would be tainted on Bay's level. Part of it is a hate of "mainstream" culture, even if TMNT is sorta-mainstream.

[Leo656]

I genuinely liked "Armageddon".

It thus stands to reason that if Bruce Willis were in the new TMNT film, everything else about it would become amazing, just by association.

Because that's exactly what Bruce Willis does. Remember those few minutes when we thought Demi Moore was sane and not a pill-popping whacko who believed Kelso would never cheat on her? Those were her few minutes with Bruce. You know how those Die Hard movies keep making money, even the one that was PG-13? You don't think it's because of quality, do you? How did the world get "lucky" enough to get a sequel to "Look Who's Talking"? Because the world absolutely demanded to hear more of those snarky quips from Bruce. The man has THREE albums that have sold millions of copies combined, despite not ONE person admitting to buying even one. And he simultaneously gave Michael Bay the best movie of his career and Aerosmith their first-ever #1 hit.

That's what Bruce Willis does: He makes the impossible possible. So if they smartened up and got Bruno involved, I think we could all get behind this project 100%. It's not too late.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by Pterobat

Y' might as well ask, "Why do people have emotional responses to things that don't affect them directly?"

People like the Turtles franchise. People see changes made to the Turtles franchise that they don't like. They get mad. Sure, you can take it too far, but a dislike of this is a normal human reaction. It's like when someone dislikes the kiddification of the TMNT franchise, the adding too many mutants, leaving some characters out, etc.

As for why the Bayman is singled out, it's because people don't like his work, independent of "changing things" in their favourite childhood franchises. Maybe he's not responsible for every bit of humour, lighting, casting, shooting, framing and exploding that happens in his movies, but certain things have become Michael Bay's "brand", so it's natural people would hate him for spreading it to other properties.

Also, some believe that their passions, however silly, have more artistic merit than Bay's films, and feel they would be tainted on Bay's level. Part of it is a hate of "mainstream" culture, even if TMNT is sorta-mainstream.

Yeah having Bay and his team handle a new TMNT movie makes a lot of sense from a financial standpoint. I won't argue that point, ever. I just think it's unfortunate given the fact that we got a movie in 1990 that was WAAAY better than it should've honestly been given the license's standing at that time. Why lower the bar of expectation now?

[Walkabout]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I genuinely liked "Armageddon".

It thus stands to reason that if Bruce Willis were in the new TMNT film, everything else about it would become amazing, just by association.

That's what Bruce Willis does: He makes the impossible possible. So if they smartened up and got Bruno involved, I think we could all get behind this project 100%. It's not too late.

He couldn't save GI JOE Retaliation

As someone who grew up on Transformers, TMNT and GI Joe in the 80's I have found the Transformers and Joe films to be worse than horrid (and was very let down by the He Man movie as a kid haha)
I guess time will tell as to what this new TMNT film will be like...

I do wholeheartedly agree that its more the suits that hired Mr Bay that are to blame, he is just doing what he has always done.

[CyberCubed]

Some people just hate Michael Bay because his movies aren't all that great.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Walkabout

He couldn't save GI JOE Retaliation

I haven't seen it yet, but I liked the first one so I may enjoy the second. We haven't seen it yet because of The Rock. What ruined the G.I. joe film franchise, was the studio's decision to cast an anti-war tree-hugger as the main character Duke in a film ostensibly about the military fighting a global terror organization, simply because the actor was the "Flavor of the Month". He demanded his character be killed off so as to "not glorify war". The prick. It's a f*cking movie.

Ah well, it's Hollywood. Reboot in ten years will fix everything.