really all budget responsibilities lay with the producer of the film.
But one thing we should straiten out here, directors are only visual directors on how the film should be shot and displayed,
all story based movies are purely down to the screenwriters, alot of people assume that the director makes a movie.
What makes a movie is a good combination of crew.
Originally posted by Bad Boy
If there are vital scenes for a film that need to look good when the money isn't there, then I think the director would worry!
A good director makes best of what he has been given.
That's why that shitpot Bay needs a $200,000,000 budget to make his crap somewhat watchable.
While a director like Sam Mendes made a masterpiece like American Beauty on an impossibly small budget.
Yes, but did American Beauty need a huge budget? No!
Are you telling me it's possible to recreate the Pearl Harbor attack with $5 million?
You are all saying he is a bad director, but have any of you actually explained why? No!
Instead you keep saying, 'Bay sucks!', 'Bay is a shitpot!', 'Bay is crap'. If Michael Bay is so crap, surely you could explain what is wrong with him instead of making immature, pointless and useless comments.
This debate is so crap because none of you are trying to contribute anything usefull. Do you actually know anything about film making? I bet you don't even know what mise-en-scene means!
he only makes one type of movie, he has no range or variety, he uses the same basic visuals constantly. he would never be able to make a movie without having a huge budget, no matter what type of movie. and he knows this, why do you think he's not directing the texas chainsaw massacre remake, because he knows it would show everyone once and for all that if he was to make a movie outside of his normal bounds (big explosions, lots of moola) it would be laughably bad.
Originally posted by Zed
really all budget responsibilities lay with the producer of the film.But one thing we should straiten out here, directors are only visual directors on how the film should be shot and displayed,
all story based movies are purely down to the screenwriters, alot of people assume that the director makes a movie.
What makes a movie is a good combination of crew.
Tex is right; you don;t have to know how to direct to spot bad direction.
And bear in mind that it is taken for granted that a director can perform may of the less glamorous aspects of his art. I don;t think there is any denying that Bay knows how to direct in general; if he ever took a 'director's exam' he would do great. Otherwise he wouldn;t be a director at all!
But Hollywood is a competitive business and merely being competent gets you nowhere and Michael Bay has never done a film in which it can be remarked that the direction really contributed to how good the film was. Which brings us back to the American Beauty example. That film woould have been nowhere without the great script, of course, but without Mendes' superlative direction it would merely have been a good rather than a classic film.
He's not directing TCSM because he's too busy directing Bad Boys 2. His films do not have the same visual style. While they are similar in style each one has developed a new and innovative style.
For example, the hospital scenes in Pearl Harbor were very clever for creating panic and frustration.
Just by saying his films are full of explosions and special effects is a really weak effort to judge him as a bad director. Yeah, he hasn't directed a wide range of films but thats because he hasn't had the chance. Im not saying he is the greatest director to roam the planet because he simply isn't, but as an action director he is simply amazing and he dares to invent new styles of film making.
I believe that a lot of you are not yet ready for his style because I think it's too ahead of your time. He's an entertainer, and if he entertains me and millions of others, how can he bad at what he does?
BTW, Bad Boys was a low budget film and Tex, if he is such a loser while still being really successful in life, what are you?
How on Earth can you marry the statements that he simply entertains and that he is ahead of our time? A storyteller or director who can only entertain and nothing else is practicing the oldest and most basic form of the craft. Ahead of ANYTHING'S time it is not. Geez, people who direct the crappiest porn films entertain millions. I am not putting Bay in that category but just pointing out that that argument in isolation is rather impotent. And by saying that we are not ready for his style you are placing yourself very firmly in the snob camp that you were so ready to accuse others of being in.
I have never seen anything in his films that made me think that the direction contributed to how good it was- at least not in any "Blimey, he must be a great director to do this" sort of way.