quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:
Don't forget... people like me and Dan would never pay to see a Michael Bay debacle. That's what advance screenings are for.

---

And amen for that!

Dan

Well, you mispelled 'typo', for starters.

Just do me a favor... stay the h*ell out of show business... there are too many jackasses like you here already.

Obviously, you swallowed the bait on that one, Big Bear. Thank you for taking that last line of my post and proving my very point. I self indict? Jesus.

You may be joking (I can't tell), but this is only one example of the poor argument. Another - A.S.C. ran a story? This is noteworthy, even if ASC runs cover stories on nearly all major films (it's an industry mag, goodness - I am glad it stays on topic!). There is some technical accomplishment in the movie. This is exactly why I was interested in seeing it, and you know, of the very few things that were praised in this movie, cinematography always got the good marks by critics. It should not be too surprising (it certainly should not a point to argue) that people are able to call various parts of a movie "good" for technical reasons.

As for the score, it was just fine. If this movie really wanted to be a Titanic mockup, the score could have been much much worse than it is. Fortunately, a lot of people are saying "Morricone" before "Horner" when placing Zimmer's music on the comparison charts.

The problem with Pearl Harbor, right from the beginning, is the script. Everything bad about the movie can be pointed to the guy who got the credit for "written by." For those who knew this writing was horrible before the movie came out, would you even go see a promo screening? Unless you take joy in self-pain, it doesn't make sense. Lightborne is right. You gotta stay out of the theater.

Well, I'm going to duck and lay it up there.

As I have said many times before, there are many, outspoken naysayers of Bay/Bruckheimer/Zimmer on this board, who unfortunately are has stubborn in their opinions as I am. The human mind is a funny thing...while we feel we are being analytical , in truth, we steer our reasoning to support whatever preconceived notions we held before approaching the point in question.

Ask yourself..."Do I hate Michael Bay's style, the type of films he has made in the past, or simply what he stands for?" Then take a look at Pearl Harbor...there was no slipshot editing, only one obnoxious slow-mo walking out of the hanger shot, and the film was a fairly sizeable departure from his past films (whether you want to be believe it or not) The film was actually fairly contemporary in style and well made. That aside, I would concur that the weakest link was the script, but this is not the case of a good screenplay gone bad at the hands of the director.

On that note, was the script really as terrible as people say. If you are a war and realism afficondo then yes. If you simply want to see an entertaining film that covers a large spectrum of emotions then no. Consider your audience...as much as we hate to think so, most films are not produced for the folks that frequent this board...its for you to decide the inherent travesty there. When considering the audience this film suceeds, even with the love element, which serves to draw the audience in and give them a personal stake in the tragic event. I like Saving Private Ryan, but other than its technical brilliance and shocking realism, it left me a little cold. But they are two different films, and should not be judged against one and other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
...you yourself have not one iota of understanding of how a film is made. If you did, you would value the technical aspects a little bit more than you do. You make generalized statements that you cannot defend with anything, save your liberal worldview...

---

Once you are done looking there, my dear Lightborne, check out the short films section of Mediatrip.com and look for the film called THE PROMISE. I did it back in 1997, after I graduated film school. I wrote, directed, and edited. Some self-important morons like you even gave it a few awards. It is just one example, but I think it is enough to refute your allegations of 'me not being qualified'.

Incidentally, I shouldn't have to post these links to make my points clear, you self-righteous tool. But since you are allegedly an 'editor', and clearly in the 'industry', I thought I'd have the pleasure of shutting you the hell up.

quote:

---

[/b]I'll join with Michael, Steven and Quentin in giving the world what it wants to see, giving them their $8.00 worth.

---

Oops, here... you dropped these. (picks up names and hands them back to you) Incidentally, 'Steven' makes pretty meaningful films. As do 'James', 'Bob Z', and a load of other men. Even your beloved 'Quentin' made a few (by the way, say hi to him for me when you see him, okay?) Personally, I think Barbra Steisand's films are even more about personal vanity that Mr. Bay's films. But it's funny to see you show your chauvanistic true colors.

quote:

---

You can stay at home, outta the theatre...

---

And make the world safe for Michael Bay and you to continue to ruin the film business? I don't think so.

And one last thing... can we get a resume on you too? I'm dying to see what kind of shows such a great cinematic mind has contributed his skills to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
BigBear... this doesn't mean we can't discuss things without making negative personal attacks a la Luxinator. Don't meet the guy on his level.

---

Hey, I certainly do appreciate your thoughts, Peter. And I agree, for the most part, on the power of positivity. And I'm trying to do my part.

Except when it comes to alleged know-it-all tools like Lightborne. I feel I am primarily responding here to some colossally ignorant statements. I don't think it is my place to try and make him 'see the light' of positivity. On the other hand, I don't think I have fully reduced myself to him level either.

But que sera. Everyone's entitled to an opinion here.

It's just funny though... people like Lightborne string themselves up and fill themselves with candy... and then act all surprised when someone starts beating them like a pinata.

To be clear, this is not personal for me, and I am not going after anyone in particular. You and Lightborne have an interesting discussion going on if you can look past the whiney bits. Calling someone a self-righteous tool never proved a point in anyone's book of arguments.

I agree with LB in some instances, and I agree with BigBear on some points. But come on, all you guys are doing is wasting your time fighting like prisses on the playground.

Be more objective in some regard and you'll see that there actually is more than one person working, dreaming and making money in Hollywood.

Bruckheimer/Bay will continue to make films. Despite all, they sell tickets. That's all that matters, even if people think they don't know how to make a good movie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Is Pearl Harbor really that much of a travestry (even Armageddon for that reason) for you get up in arms and lead a holy crusade?

---

It's no crusade, it's the career I have chosen for my livelihood. And more than that, it is terribly important to me. It is my passion, it is what drives me. When I was seven years old, I saw RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. It changed my life, and I swore to myself not long after that if I could ever do for some little kid what RAIDERS did for me... that is, to get him or her excited just to be alive... I will have truly accomplished something great.

It's funny... on a conceptual level, RAIDERS is not all that different from what Michael Bay does. The real difference (in a nutshell) is that RAIDERS was a story being told, as opposed to a series of photographic incidents more concerned with aesthetics than story or character. Of course it is only my opinion... but I am dedicating my life to making... yes, believe it or not... entertaining movies. But I say that there are a lot of people out there who have either never had or forgotten what it is like to have a movie truly entertain them. I mean entertain, engaging us on nearly all levels... physical, emotional, spiritual... if you say this is too lofty a goal, I say you should be asking more of your movies.

Which has been my point all along. I'm not being a snob... I LOVE movies. For all kinds of reasons. When I think of recent fare like CONTACT, JERRY MAGUIRE, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, etc... I get very happy. Because I know that in the hands of capable filmmakers who care about telling a moving, human story, the dream is still very much alive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
Calling someone a self-righteous tool never proved a point in anyone's book of arguments.

---

I didn't call Lightborne that to prove any point. I called him that because when I read what he posts, that's what he sounds like,

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
But come on, all you guys are doing is wasting your time fighting like prisses on the playground.

---

Or is it you who is wasting your time reading what we write? Hmm.

A word to the wise. Don't mess with FishChip. Move on. You'll be better off for it. Trust me. Let him get his last word in, and let's talk about film scores, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
Don't mess with FishChip.

---

Was I?

Dan, I am so not about getting the last word in here. I understand that PeterK is affiliated with this Message Board somehow. That's fine by me. I'm not being rude to him, merely giving as good as I am getting.

But if it came to it, I'd rather go down (or get booted) standing up for what I believe in than tuck tail just because someone may have the power to block my IP address or something. If it came to that, it would be perfectly okay by me. I'd actually get more writing done.

But if it's all the same, you have the last word, PeterK. It's yours, by all means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:

Was I?

---

Well, no, you weren't. But that's not the point. He thought you were pushing buttons, so therefore you must have been pushing buttons.

quote:

---

I'm not being rude to him, merely giving as good as I am getting.

---

Yeah... I've tried that. It doesn't seem to work often.

Just my $0.02....

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:

Just my $0.02....

---

And it's very appreciated. Sincerely. Not enough consideration going on around here lately, is there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
We're having an amicable discussion on how to keep the boards fun while allowing for disagreements.

---

Your servant, sir.

Just happy to be invited to the party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
...saying that he doesn't belong in "showbusiness"--ehh....not so cool

---

You're right, Lance. Totally snobby. Mea culpa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:
Not enough consideration going on around here lately, is there?

---

Sadly no. But with all of the "other powers trying to work here", the conspiracy theorists must be having a field day! Hope it doesn't ruin the party!

I can sympathize with your desire for integrity...but honestly, I have yet to hear a well supported argument as to why Pearl Harbor is a poor film...save beyond the gripe about the screenplay. "Michael Bay sucks" seems to be the justification. Honestly, what was it about the DIRECTION (only) that bothered you? Cinematography, acting, editing, flow?

Believe me, I love movies, and I write screenplays (merely as a hobby of course), but I find that if you elevate your standards and increase expectations you can miss out on some simple pleasures. Honestly, I think that's where a lot of people put there $8--on simple pleasures.

I think what some of our Anti-Bay proponents argue is along the same lines. But, perhaps as we've argued, again and again, it's pretty subjective. What do you get out of it? Does it speak to you?

I'm a bit of a flag-waver here. I grew up in a military family, so I enjoy films that treat that whole "importance of serving your country" and "volunteering at the expense of your life against overwhelming odds"--with a good deal of respect.

That got to me (emotion-wise) more than the mild-but-pleasant love story. As far as Randall Wallace is concerned, I think his repetoire seems to address a lot of that sentiment. (Yeah, even Man in the Iron Mask.)

Maybe it smacks a little of propogandism. Well, crap, that's what war movies were made for 40, 50 years ago....Tragic heroes, tragic love, victory in death... (For some reason, I'm thinking of The Sand Pebbles at the moment. (Hey--Mako (Yamamoto in PH) was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor in that film....)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
I have yet to hear a well supported argument as to why Pearl Harbor is a poor film

---

Huh. I thought I provided a rather well supported (in my opinion, of course) argument. If you look at the very first post on this thread, and replace the word "sucked" with "was dissapointing" or "didn't reach effective levels" or "was poor", then you'll see waht I mean. (But it did suck, in my opinion, and to replace that word with the phrases above is merely sugar-coating the obvious.)

And Shaun, shouldn't it be renamed "Shaun pops in and says something in an attempt to be clever that has nothing to do with the topic at hand"?
Dan

Hokey-forced drama...well crap, even Steven Spielberg does that! I guess it worked, half of my family was misting at the eyes, including my "I never cry!" brother. But that just goes to show how the same movie can effect different people on different levels.

I really dug THE ROCK, even though it had problems. Even ARMAGEDDON didn't try to be a "romantic war epic". So to answer your question, the direction sucked NOT because it was Michael Bay, but because it just wasn't good direction.

I WILL say, though, that I thought Bay's editing is slowing down (and therefore improving somewhat); a comment he himself made on the ARMAGEDDON commentary track.

The other problem with the film is a lack of good editing. I happen to agree with Andy Dursin's take that the director's cut DVD of Pearl Harbor should be shortened, not lengthened. I could argue that a lot of money was spent on the movie, which a lot of directors feel is as good a reason to keep scenes in, but I would be off track in this point - the scenes that needed to be cut weren't the expensive ones!

Just a few more observations. Yes, a lot of people have said Michael Bay sucked as a director on Pearl Harbor, but I haven't seen any good illustrations of this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
"Michael Bay sucks" seems to be the justification. Honestly, what was it about the DIRECTION (only) that bothered you? Cinematography, acting, editing, flow?

---

Much as I have been tempted to, I don't think I have really said this once. I think I have justified my criticisms of Bay's body or work pretty consistently.

But in a nutshell, I think Bay directs 'moments'... with no real knowledge of how to string them together to form a cohesive whole. Ergo, you get movies that look very pretty... and where important stuff always seems to be happening... but seldom amounts to anything more than the barest sum of its parts.

I remember coming out of ARMAGEDDON feeling like I just had the sh*t kicked out of me. Literally. I was dizzy, not to mention angry. When I had gathered my thoughts, I came to this realization about Bay's "sizzle instead of steak" approach: he directs every moment as if something amazingly important was happening... from the turn of a key to the death of a main character. This is akin to saying that everything is important. Which is exactly like saying nothing is important. Which is how his movies make me feel... hollow, detached, and numb. And if I ever wanted to feel that way, I'd cut out the middle man and start smoking crack.

quote:

---

...if you elevate your standards and increase expectations you can miss out on some simple pleasures. Honestly, I think that's where a lot of people put there $8--on simple pleasures.

---

I understand you completely. I like lots of movie for lots of different reasons. They don't have to all be life-changing cinematic events. They just have to know what they are and stay true to it.

Example... no one will ever accuse the movie KULL THE CONQUEROR of being anything approaching art. But I dig it anyways. I dig it because Kevin Sorbo seems to be having so much fun with it... and his fun is infectious. And Joel Goldsmith's score actually pulls off being rock n roll AND symphonic at the same time. It all just makes me smile. So I understand simple pleasures in moviegoing.

PEARL HARBOR was anything but simple to me. The story was simplistic... but that's hardly the same thing. It was equal parts banal (the love story) and frenetic (the action). I just never got the sense that Bay knew what the h*ll movie he was making, only that he wanted to somehow make people cry the way James Cameron did in TITANIC.

So yes, I suppose that in general, Michael Bay sucks. But I hope I have explained why I think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
When I went to art school, another guy and I got into a bit of a row about whether Bob Ross had any artistic signifigance. I though, sure, why not, but the other guy said "All he's got is style--no substance."

---

Did your friend ever listen to what our dear departed Mr. Ross talked about when he painted?

He is responsible for one of the most helpful things I have ever heard, something that really changed my perspective way back when. One day I was watching, and Ross's hand slipped, marring the canvas. He smiled and said, "There are no mistakes, only happy accidents".

He made it sound so simple. You want substance? As far as I'm concerned, Ross was a genius.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:
He made it sound so simple.

---

I meant Bob Ross made it sound simple. But I gotcha.

But I don't think we should get into this again.

I will say that upon a second viewing I discovered what bothered be about PEARL HARBOR and kind of didn't bother me at the same time. These would be the basic theft or explicit references to previous films. LAST CRUSADE, LEGENDS OF THE FALL, RETURN OF THE JEDI, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, INDEPENDENCE DAY. Some of these shots were exact duplicates of their referenced films. This tells me though that at least a director is acknowledging the films that have influenced him. And if you are going to steal or borrow, as it's told all artists do, then why not do it from the best (or your best). THE MUMMY is nothing more than Spielberg's RAIDERS films with mummies that come to life. But they are fun to watch because it is a sucessful tale told in the same manner, kind of like the Roman tales that were spawned by the Greek tales.

As far as direction goes, I think Michael Bay has a passion for film. He is inspired like we are and is meticulous in his detail. This is proven by his duplication of the shots from other movies that inspired him. Yes, the acting is not Academy Award material but you are dealing with Ben Affleck. Josh Harnett will be one to watch. He has that Brad Pitt quality to him. Kate Beckinsale was forgettable, except in her story on the train scene. This was her fleeting moment of glory in the film. As Alec Baldwin's teeth biting moment in his first scene after he say's "very good bullshit" These are moments that a director creates, encourages or simply allows to happen. Either way it is good direction. If you understand acting you understand that direction is not always "directing" the actor's through the moment. You help them find it. The problem with movies like this and TITANIC is that you never seem to understand why the"female" love interest is so important, why these capable male character's slight their James Dean personas to fall helplessly in love with the girl. Thus, we don't understand why the love story is occurring. I must admit, even in LEGENDS OF THE FALL, I felt this. It's a hard thing casting the female lead, but she must be radiant. Big dIrectors like Bay and Cameron miss this. And that is why it seems less real. Now in a movie like AS GOOD AS IT GETS I understood why Jack Nicholson goes out of his gourd for Helen Hunt and I'm not a Helen Hunt fan, but in that movie she was radiant, and that was a comedy. But the love story was more believable to me than these big budget epic romances. The love story in PEARL HARBOR that was most interesting to me was that between Red and Bettie. Perhaps Bay should have casted James King in the lead female role.

In any case, I think Bay is a capable director, not a perfect one that achieves a lot of wehat he goes for in a film. Even if it is the rollercoaster ride extravaganza. I think after ARMAGEDDON he wants you to feel like you just went ten rounds. Cause you just did according to the film you just say. When I came out of SEVEN, people asked what I thought of it. I told them is was wonderful. "Why so sullen, then?" they asked. Because that was the effect the movie had on me. I was depressed and felt sick inside. I think that's what Fincher wanted me to feel which is why he fought so hard for that ending.

Ah well, enough of this thread. I think it has exhausted itself. No hard feelings. I don't have all the answers, but I won't give up on contesting an opinion if I believe it is worth it.

And, as I'd hoped you might notice, I do try and give a lot of attention to all things technical... photography, sound design, music (Debbie Lurie - the composer - is one to watch, folks... she really has the goods).

I dunno... those 'technical' things are always a chore to do well... whether in one of Michael Bay's films or a much smaller one like my own.

That is a large part of what ticks me off about movies like PEARL HARBOR... I feel bad for the crew! They totally busted their asses for God knows how many weeks and weeks... and they achieved some staggeringly cool stuff in the process... but in the end, they deserved better. They deserved a good script, a story worth telling. And, of course this is just my opinion, a director who won't stop working on the script until it is something good... something special.

Even if it fails, make it a passionate failure. Not a by-the-numbers blockbuster with no soul.

I remember hearing a story from a friend who was in the camera department on the movie HARD RAIN (then known as THE FLOOD). He and his buddies had been away for months and months, trying every day to pull off some ridiculously elaborate shot for their director (who was a former DP). And then one day it was time for the premiere. When the lights came up, practically everyone in the camera department looked at each other and said, "Well, that was a giant waste of time." They wanted a good story, more than anything else. They had done their jobs, and done it well... why couldn't the writers and director do them the same courtesy?

I guess my long-winded point is that technical achievement, while truly an art-form unto itself, will always be subservient to a great story with interesting characters. Even to the crews that spend their lives doing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:
Debbie Lurie - the composer - is one to watch, folks... she really has the goods.

---

Agreed! I'm sure people might be a bit more familiar with her work on GEORGE LUCAS IN LOVE and EVIL HILL (both online at www.mediatrip.com), but keep an eye on her!