Interesting Bay Interview About TF3

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:25 pm

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/01/ ... of-a-mess/

It sounds so promising, doesn't it? It's almost convincing, this interview. Especially the way he recognizes the atrocity that was ROTF.

Then I remember, this is Michael Bay, the Transformers are metal shavings, yadda, yadda.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:48 pm

See the problem is he says TF2 was a mess, but not the same way we would think that. Bay thinks it was a mess because it didn't have more of the crap we hate in it.

Not enough racist caracatures, wank jokes, things exploding for no reason and shapeless, interchangeable robots.

Too much plot, acting and characterisation of the robots.

But TF3 will correct all that. Oh yes.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:04 pm

It really troubles me that Spielberg and Bay still see this franchise as more human centered than Tfs. I couldnt care less about what Sam does or doesnt or his parents or his bitchy Gf. He shouldnt be the main focus of the story but what set in motion everything. The Tfs should be explored more, its their movie, I go to see them. And to the critics that say that we cant "relate to robots", we relate to characters the issue is just if they are correctly done.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:14 pm

***And to the critics that say that we cant "relate to robots", we relate to
***characters the issue is just if they are correctly done.

Absolutely. I think it's an utter scam to say "Well people can't emote with robots so we have to make it about humans". The audience will emote along with well defined characters and an engaging story.

To run the movies the way they have been run is just a tacit admission that those involved are not competent enough to write them properly, with the focus on the robot characters and their intricacies.

Instead they rely on standard, boiler-plate techniques to make the films (barely) function: human everyman character, eye-candy actress yadda yadda yadda.

I swear to god there is some machine in Hollywood where you just feed plastic into one end, turn a handle a few times and an action/superhero movie will pop out of the other end.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:06 pm

Karl wrote:I swear to god there is some machine in Hollywood where you just feed plastic into one end, turn a handle a few times and an action/superhero movie will pop out of the other end.

I can understand why you'd want to believe that - it's actually the preferable scenario to hundreds of technically skilled, experienced people spending millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours assembling a giant turd.

Post by **Best First** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:25 pm

Jack Cade wrote:
Karl wrote:I swear to god there is some machine in Hollywood where you just feed plastic into one end, turn a handle a few times and an action/superhero movie will pop out of the other end.
I can understand why you'd want to believe that - it's actually the preferable scenario to hundreds of technically skilled, experienced people spending millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours assembling a giant turd.

Unfortunatley the key words missing at the end of that sentance are "...that made millions and millions of dollars."

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:07 pm

Lowest common denominator sells (enough) every time. Just look at Adam Sandler's career...

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:12 am

It basically comes down to him not having the first clue about how to do films like this right.

That crap about people not being able to relate - here's a hint - MAKE THEM MORE EXPRESSIVE.

And that doesn't mean "give Optimus a crappy skeletal monkey face" it means have them move less like a bunch of construction machinery having an orgy, and instead, say, have Andy Serkis in a mocap suit hooked up to your render of Shockwave, and matching voice work with the body language.

Get some quality actors playing the transformers and you don't NEED these third rate ones playing humans.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:08 pm

ROTF was a masterpiece. I love it with all of my heart.

Every single one of you is wrong.

Mr_Tigg · Post by **Mr_Tigg** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:09 pm

I have a theory on why so many Hollywood movies suffer from poor dialogue and plots based off my own experiences of working in advertising.

In my industry, it seems to be fairly common for visually-led Art/Creative directors to be the driving force behind many projects. The result of this is that much of the focus and energy is poured directly into making everything look dead flashy and pretty to look at. The written material for advertising (referred to as ‘Copy’ and produced by someone like myself, a Copywriter), is somewhat of an afterthought and is usually the first thing to be sacrificed over design if a project needs editing in some regard.

I regularly find myself submitting copy decks (the document with all written content for the advert), only to find that mysteriously through the design process, my copy has undergone a monstrous transformation (complete with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes) into a simplified version. In contrast, the design has been bizarrely ramped up to perfection.

It’s quite a frustrating process, and you often find yourself banging your head on a brick wall to get art directors to listen to your input. I’d imagine that Film Directors are similar beasts, more pre-occupied with getting the perfect shot then actually making sure the damned film makes sense! I wouldn’t be surprised if the Directors were changing scripts on the fly with the writers completely out the loop – with little consideration for the detrimental effect it will have on the final product.

The emphasis also seems to be that “less is more” and to dumb things down, to assume that people won’t get it or have time to read it if there are one too many words. Tron: Legacy is a great example of a film were clearly the focus has always been on flashy effects and visual aesthetic over writing witty dialogue or piecing together a plot that actually made an ounce of sense.

I imagine someone like Bay, what with his reputation for favouring loud explosions and spectacle over intelligent characters, wouldn’t give a second thought to making ongoing changes to the script during the shooting process. I’m sure secretly, the writers probably felt a touch of despair over the end product with regards to ROTF.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:22 pm

I dont understand the importance of Megan and how her absense is detrimental to the movie (Im in an argument right now in that link)

IT DOESNT MATTERRRR.

She was always eye candy, and the new one will be just the same. I want to see the Tfs in the story!!! Not Sam´s Soap Operaaaaaa.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:00 pm

Megan, 7 of 9, 13... they're all the exact same casting trick IMO.

"Look, we've got an utterly two dimensional character whom we've given a couple of sledge-hammer like 'hooks' [is a petrol head/used to be a Borg/is bisexual - delete as appropriate] to disguise the fact we're getting cheap ratings by casting a pretty girl who can't act."

When I want eyecandy/porn I use the Internet: who the heck goes to movies for that? Do we live in the 50s or something?

Cast people who can actually act (Olivia Wilde can, to her credit) and then write them as rounded characters... blah blah etc.

grumble grumble...

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:48 pm

I think jeri Ryan was/is a great actor to be fair, but I get your point.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:59 pm

I've only ever seen her in Voyager, and to her credit she isn't the worst thing in that but that's not saying much

I think, most of the time, poor writing is almost indistinguishable from poor acting so I may be doing her a big injustice.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:59 pm

Agree, Olivia Wilde has talent. I think Keira Knightley is the best of that breed of hot young women.

But I have to echo the sentiments of the whole eye candy bit. It's gotten to point now that if a movie doesn't have a gratuitous sex scene or some half naked hot chick, it's bashed by the critics.

For example, with Tron:Legacy. It's written in such a way that you get the idea there's growing feelings between Sam and Quorra, but not once do they make out, kiss, or hold hands even. Yet, you know that the attraction is there by their behavior and such. Nuff said.

The best handling I ever saw of this sort of thing was in Life is Beautiful. The main star (forget his name) has fallen for this women. You see them walk into a bedroom, and the very next second they're coming out with a baby in their hands. Message received. Sex scene not necessary.

Putting sex scenes in movies, for me, cheapens it. It's like they're trying to sell it to me through my loins instead of my brain. As Karl says, if you want that, you can get that on the Internet.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:11 am

Yaya wrote: But I have to echo the sentiments of the whole eye candy bit. It's gotten to point now that if a movie doesn't have a gratuitous sex scene or some half naked hot chick, it's bashed by the critics.

Hang, on - that's a load of reactionary bollocks isn't it?

Mr_Tigg · Post by **Mr_Tigg** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:18 pm

Yaya wrote:Agree, Olivia Wilde has talent. I think Keira Knightley is the best of that breed of hot young women.

Am I misreading this or are you stating that Kiera Knightley is a good actress?!? She's so wooden she could give you a splinter!

*shudders at her speech scene in Pirates 3*

Natalie Portman all the way for me - not seen her put in a bad performance*

*EDIT - then I remembered the star wars prequels....

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:24 pm

Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote: But I have to echo the sentiments of the whole eye candy bit. It's gotten to point now that if a movie doesn't have a gratuitous sex scene or some half naked hot chick, it's bashed by the critics.
Hang, on - that's a load of reactionary bollocks isn't it?

No way man. Didn't you see Toy Story 3? It was basically a porno and got absolutely slated by the press. The same press who gave every "best film of the year" award to the convent-based Catholic study Piranha 3D.

He's totally right.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:52 pm

to be fair, I think she was TOLD to act that way in the prequels so that Sam Jackson could look somewhat intelligent.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:05 pm

Mr Tigg wrote:I regularly find myself submitting copy decks (the document with all written content for the advert), only to find that mysteriously through the design process, my copy has undergone a monstrous transformation (complete with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes) into a simplified version. In contrast, the design has been bizarrely ramped up to perfection.

Likewise, I get frustrated by gorgeously made magazines that are rammed full of nothing. Alas, it's a cultural thing - we are not a very literary society. The average person's taste in creative and critical writing is much less sophisticated/well developed than their taste in visual artistry or music. The problem you're experiencing is that so many of the people you're working with have an underdeveloped aptitude for language. If t'were the other way round, in some parallel universe, incisive cultural writing would be published on glued together sheets of paper with a crayon drawing on the front, or on websites featuring white comic sans text on a lime green background with an incessantly flashing menu whose links are all broken.

With Hollywood, I just expect it's a case of the writers for any given project being hacks. They're paid to flesh out other people's creative visions (those other people being rich bores) and any spark of defiant individualism or perfectionism in them will have been killed off years ago. Serious writers have a better chance of seeing their work on the screen by penning a decent novel and hoping someone options it. Just check out how many critically successful movies from the last decade are adaptations.

And yeah, Keira Knightly sucks. Painfully. I find her almost as physically difficult to watch as the new Doctor Who. Carey Mulligan is the genuinely talented alternative.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:41 pm

Jack Cade wrote:
And yeah, Keira Knightly sucks. Painfully.

I volunteer to give a second opinion.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:43 pm

Jack Cade wrote: I find her almost as physically difficult to watch as the new Doctor Who. Carey Mulligan is the genuinely talented alternative.

Sally Sparrow destroys you!

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:00 am

Brendocon wrote:
Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote: But I have to echo the sentiments of the whole eye candy bit. It's gotten to point now that if a movie doesn't have a gratuitous sex scene or some half naked hot chick, it's bashed by the critics.
Hang, on - that's a load of reactionary bollocks isn't it?
No way man. Didn't you see Toy Story 3? It was basically a porno and got absolutely slated by the press. The same press who gave every "best film of the year" award to the convent-based Catholic study Piranha 3D.

He's totally right.

Hey, thanks for getting my back.