We  look at Hollywood’s fascination with the Man vs Machine story, and why these films are so successful…

It’s a strange paradox that’s evolved since the birth of the World Wide Web, where humans have become closer than ever before while gradually losing our ability to connect. Social networking has become the buzzword of the first decade of this new century, with major websites MySpace and Facebook leading the way, often to the detriment of actual human interpersonal relationships. The fact that we now have the ability to connect with anybody, anywhere in the world, at the click of a mouse button, has led to a dilution of social depth filled with Tweets and Status Updates no longer than a paragraph at best. Rather than a handful of real, actual friends with whom we have genuine bonds and interaction, we’re left with a gaggle of world wide networking “friends” that have no meaning in our lives save for bolstering our increasingly bloated “friend list”.

The fact that social networking on the web has led to a fracturing of actual relationships, rather than an improvement of them, is indicative of the apparent human desire to live our lives in a world of electronic bytes and disconnected “pokes”. We’d rather update our status than go out and meet people. Apparently.

The closer we get, the further apart we grow?

Using this kind of new age thinking, it’s appropriate that we dissect a current thematic trend in Hollywood over the last decade. Recently, I had the pleasure of perusing a couple of similarly themed films, Gamer and Surrogates, and it struck me that Hollywood has really embraced the concept of a humanity so isolated from itself that we resort to a kind of avatar lived lifestyle. The Matrix (1999) took us into an alternative world where humans lived in a state of induced hallucination. For many fans, the idea that we could live in a world where bullet time existed was almost too much: and the film asked the question of us… are we indeed living in a world run by our minds? Recent films such as Gamer, which had a psuedo-Crysis style theme of humans controlling others via a web-based mind link, and Surrogates, where humans lived in their houses and controlled robotic representations of themselves out in the world, have tapped into the theme of living our lives through some sort of fantasy. Even Avatar, James Cameron’s most recent blockbuster, swam with the theme of living a life outside your own body via a machine connected to a constructed body: so the themes of externalising our lives have really taken hold in recent years. Robin William’s role in Final Cut even went to the extreme of having our memories recorded and edited down upon our death for our loved one’s edification – admittedly no direct “machine” interaction occurred here, but the film portrayed our lives as being little more than a series of adventures recorded on a machine in our brains.

For the sake of argument, we’ll focus our arguments on a few films which capture the essence of the man-machine theme in film: The Matrix, Surrogates, Gamer and Avatar. No doubt there are others we’ve forgotten about, but these in particular stand out in the public conscious.

(more…)

Recent news out of Hollywood is somewhat disturbing: MGM Studios, the guys who have the rights to the James Bond franchise, and a 50% stake in the upcoming Hobbit films, have cancelled production on the next Bond film, which was to be the 23rd instalment. Due to MGM’s financial difficulty, they can’t afford to make another Bond movie right now. So what does this mean for The Hobbit movies? Are they, too, due to be consigned to the almost-ran scrapheap of unrealised movie dreams? Unlikely, although perhaps they may have to be put on hold for a while, until things are sorted out.

The nutshell version of the back-story is this: MGM are currently in administration (read: nearly bankrupt) and the administrators are trying like hell to sell the studio to pay off the debts. The main problem with all this is that they want more money than anybody is prepared to pay. Which leaves any and all projects currently funded, or co-funded, by MGM, up in the air. So, for both Bond and The Hobbit to move forward with any certainty, somebody rich is going to have to shell out some serious coin for the deal to take place. Fanboy consensus around the web indicates that perhaps the administrators are being a tad greedy in what they’re asking for, perhaps they should try selling the studio at a realistic price (hell, Time-Warner owns half of everything on planet Earth, so why not MGM?) and get this whole messy situation sorted out. Reading between the lines, I tend to think the snouts in the trough are keeping this from becoming easier, instead trying to play hard-ball and feather their own nests. Which isn’t against the law, but it is holding up production on The Hobbit.

UPDATE…

Word has surfaced that the internet new services (and by default, us) may have been a bit premature to write off the James Bond franchise (as above), as this report from First Showing states. The new Bond 23 film is “delayed”, rather than “cancelled”, with director Sam Mendes (yes, American Beauty‘s Sam Mendes) and star Daniel Craig stating that they would wait for the MGM troubles to be sorted out.

Look, this whole MGM thing is getting out of hand. Won’t somebody please make a decision and sort it out?

Peter Jackson in talks to direct The Hobbit?

We said it here: Peter Jackson will direct the upcoming Hobbit films. And it looks like we were right: Jackson is reportedly in talks to direct the two films for the MGM/New Line backed project, which has been plagued by troubles over the last twelve months, including losing original director Guillermo Del Toro due to scheduling problems.

If Jackson does sign on the dotted line to direct, we think it’s a perfect outcome for both fans, the films, and the studios. Everybody wants Jackson to direct The Hobbit, and now it looks like we might just get our way.

MGM Studios, which are currently having all kinds of financial difficulty, own 50% of the rights to The Hobbit films, with New Line making up the other half. With MGM unable to raise enough cash to fund the project at the minute, negotiations are under way to somehow salvage the studio. An auction earlier this year failed to raise enough interest from other film studios to buy the legendary lion outright. At the minute, with no funding, the Hobbit films may be headed for bankruptcy court alongside the MGM-co-owned James Bond franchise, which would spell the end of the project for the foreseeable future. Whichever way this plays out, here at fernbyfilms.com, we hope like heck that things turn out okay.

Go on, you know you want to....

Unsurprisingly non-committal, Peter Jackson has today hinted that were it required, he would step in and direct the planned two Hobbit films. Problem is, he currently has contracts with other studios to direct other films which may hinder this process. Yesterday’s news that Guillermo Del Toro was stepping down as director of the planned films has internet buzz and fan reaction going (as you’d expect) all kinds of bananas, but I think wise heads may prevail and eventually, everybody’s favourite Middle Earth Director will return to the world of Tolkien in a facet outside of mere “producer”. There’s too much money riding on this franchise for things not to work themselves out, problems with MGM aside. Check out this article on local NZ website for all the details.

Jackson and his team are currently in Hollywood chatting with the studio about who in the heck they can approach to take on this massive project, and word is expected sooner rather than later as to the result. We will, of course, keep you informed.

Guillermo Del Toro - Gone from The Hobbit... but not forgotten...

In a major bit of news today, word out of New Zealand is that Guillermo Del Toro, the acclaimed director the Hellboy franchise, Pan’s Labyrinth, The Devils Backbone and Mimic, is leaving The Hobbit project after a year or so of development. This is a major blow to Tolkien fans, and leaves the project in something resembling a debacle. With the story initially broken over at theonering.net, we felt it pertinent to add it here for you all to read as well… and we’ll update our Hobbit page accordingly, very soon. Below, we’ve reprinted the statement published on TORN this morning.

“In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming “The Hobbit,” I am faced with the hardest decision of my life”, says Guillermo. “After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wlsh the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director”.

“We feel very sad to see Guillermo leave the Hobbit, but he has kept us fully in the loop and we understand how the protracted development time on these two films, due to reasons beyond anyone’s control – has compromised his commitment to other long term projects”, says Executive Producer Peter Jackson. “The bottom line is that Guillermo just didn’t feel he could commit six years to living in New Zealand, exclusively making these films, when his original commitment was for three years. Guillermo is one of the most remarkable creative spirits I’ve ever encountered and it has been a complete joy working with him. Guillermo’s strong vision is engrained into the scripts and designs of these two films, which are extremely fortunate to be blessed with his creative DNA”.

“Guillermo is co-writing the Hobbit screenplays with Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and myself, and happily our writing partnership will continue for several more months, until the scripts are fine tuned and polished” says Jackson. “New Line and Warner Bros will sit down with us this week, to ensure a smooth and uneventful transition, as we secure a new director for the Hobbit. We do not anticipate any delay or disruption to ongoing pre-production work”.

Consider me disappointed, as I’d love to have seen Del Toro’s work on The Hobbit come to fruition. Knowing he’ll remain on board until a new director is found, to continue the writing and pre-production process, is good to know, as it will ensure a small amount of continuity going forward. But it’s disappointing nonetheless. Now I guess we’ll just have to wait to find out who’s up for the job! If I was a betting man, I’d be hedging for Mr P Jackson to assume the reins to see this thing done properly.

Rest assured, we’ll keep you updated is more news comes to hand.

Late Edit: here’s a link to the EW article expanding a little more on the situation…

You are DUMPED!!!

Astounding (but hardly surprising) news today out of Hollywood, that actress Megan Fox has been dumped a week into filming on Michael Bay’s Transformers 3. Reports over at Deadline are suggesting that Bay has sacked his female star due to her comments last year comparing Bay with Hitler, saying that working with the director was like working for the Nazi chief. You can read all the gory details on that page, including the variety of blog posts and magazine quotes which have led to this occuring. And like many, I don’t think Megan’s career can survuive this; after all, her other film ventures (Jonah Hex,  Jennifer’s Body) have all flopped commercially at the box office, leading many to speculate that she won’t be getting any major roles anytime soon.

Check out the report on Deadline here.

PS: Sorry for posting what is essentially “gossip”, but considering we have an entire page devoted to TF3 here at fernbyfilms.com, we thought it was worth mentioning.

Not many people would be aware of this, but I love me some Doctor Who. I first encountered the Doctor and his TARDIS back in the mid-80′s at school, when I started reading the Target novelisations on his adventures, and then tuned in to the show on TV. My first memory of Doctor Who is the Tom Baker serial “Meglos”. From there, I’ve always had a soft spot for the wandering Time Lord. I, along with many, were enchanted and overjoyed with the 2005 reinvention of this classic series, and have enjoyed the saga continuing ever since. I thought Chris Eccleston, as the Ninth Doctor, was okay, but the series really took off with David Tennant’s toothy, cheerily intense portrayal. Now, we have our first look at the latest guy to take up residence in the blue Police Box, Matt Smith.

I like him.

Thanks to the power of the Internet (here in Australia, only the opening episode has been broadcast at this time), I’ve had the chance to see the three broadcast episodes (at the time of writing) so far, up to and including the latest, “Victory Of The Daleks”, and I have to say, while the adventures themselves are a little off-kilter, Smith’s portrayal of the Doctor is excellent. His companion, Amy Pond (played by Karren Gillam) is sexy hot, a great contrast to the new Doctor, and I look forward to their continued adventures together.

I’d like to offer a congratulatory doff of the cap to the current production team (led by Who legend Steven Moffat!) for continuing to bring the Doctors exciting adventures to the screen.

fernbyfilms.com will remain 3D-free: Here’s why!

People attending any multiplex over the last 12 months or so would no doubt have encountered, if not attended, a film presented in 3D. In the age of BluRay, streaming video online and P2P file sharing, film studios are looking desperately to reclaim some of the market share lost to the (increasingly inaccurately named) home video market. So they’ve come up with a new face for an old gimmick, 3D. And according to viewing figures (if they’re to be believed), 3D films make more money than regular 2D versions do. Of course, this is to be expected when the cinema chains charge an extra two or three bucks to rent some funky 3D glasses for an hour or so, per person per time. Avatar, currently the highest grossing film of all time, may not have been such a performer if it hadn’t had the filmic equivalent of a bottle of Viagra to help it out: 3D market share. Many pundits in the industry have said that Avatar wouldn’t have been as successful had it simply been another 2D film, and I have to say I agree with them.

To continue with the rest of this rant, click here!!

There’s been a lot of talk (again) this year post-Oscars about how boring the show is. Again we’re regaled with sub-standard humor, dance routines and music that do not mix well, tedious self-congratulatory waffling and many, many unrequired time fillers. The Oscars, the pinnacle of the US awards season, is the single most important of all the ceremonial moments in a calendar year to recognise the various films on release. With all that money, all that raw talent and history at the Academy’s disposal, how then do the Oscars rank on the entertainment scale somewhere alongside a cavity search?

(more…)

And so the Oscars are done with for another year. Ultimately uninvolving, only slightly interesting to see if James Cameron and Katherine Bigelow might duke it out Balboa style in the aisle (anybody else notice that the organisers slotted Cameron into the seat immediately behind his ex wife?) and genuinely devoid of any real controversy. Although, the story on the pushy producer who stole the microphone from Music By Prudence director Roger Ross Williams only gets louder the more you think about it. In light of the magnificent performances and artists involved, I thought I’d jot down some random, chronologically inept thoughts on the ceremony we’ve just witnessed.

Twin hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin fared okay, although most of their humour wasn’t the riotous laugh-out-loud stuff many previous hosts have given us. For goodness sake, bring back Whoopi, or even give Robin Williams a shot. I really enjoyed their somewhat forced opening duologing, targeting those celebrities in the audience who were awaiting their fate. But their “hosting” job felt shoehorned into the programme, they came and went on stage individually with barely a murmur, save to introduce the next star to traipse up and read the nominees. Martin, who I usually find as funny as a fart in an elevator, showed moments of genius (“I wrote that guy’s speech” for one flabbergasted and stuck-for-words winner was hilarious) but was overwhelmingly undone by the awkward looking Baldwin. I admit, I thought Baldwin was a great coup for the show, but I went unrewarded by what looked like a slightly inebriated (and ill-timed) host.

Generally, the Oscars this year went off with almost no surprises, at least in the major categories. Sandra Bullock won, described by Channel 9 “entertainment reporter” Richard Wilkins as a “career Oscar”. Boo, you wanker. Christoph Waltz got Best Supporting Actor, sweet as. Jeff Bridges won his own “career Oscar” for Crazy Heart, and almost cried. Almost. At least Sandra did cry. Mo’Nique was favourite to win Best Supporting Actress, and she won with aplomb.

Miley Cyrus and that other young chick did okay presenting for Best Original Song, but she looks so out of place at the Oscars! Stand up straight dear! So to Twilight’s Kirsten Stewart (minus R-Pat) and Taylor Lautner show up to do an homage to Horror films, which is kinda nifty if a little kitsch for Oscar. Nice to see bits from some modern stuff, as well as the tired old Carrie/Rosemary’s Baby/Exorcist reels trotted out. How Jaws became a horror film is beyond me, though. Not sure what Spielberg thinks of it.

Ben Stiller brought the evenings only true pastiche of the show to life, as a blue-hued parody of the characters from Avatar: James Cameron seemed to enjoy it, although we’ll never know what Sascha Baron Cohen would have brought to the moment. Could have sparked some life into it. I normally find Stiller a mildly bearable comedian, but considering the dearth of real laughs for the show, his was a highlight.

Speaking of celebrities being pissed off, what the hell was wrong with George Clooney? Looked like somebody just raped his cat! Cheer up fella, if you’re going to sit in row A at the Oscars, at least have the decency to smile and clap like the rest of them. I think I even saw a death-stare in there as Baldwin laid into him! There was a smile later, but it felt conciliatory.

Didn’t like: the multiple Best Actor and Actress introductions by various celebrities. Went on way too long, and some of those people speaking were appallingly ill advised in their comments. My favourite, however, was Tim Robbins anecdotal reminiscing of his time on set with Morgan Freeman, who was nominated for his role in Invictus. Sean Penn, who re-read the nominees for Best Actress, delivered some half-baked apology to the Academy that confused everyone in the room, and was so totally ad-libbed I can only imagine the hair-pulling backstage.

Didn’t like: The extended John Hughes obit, which carried on way too long, instead of the normally reserved and respectful obit sequence later in the show for all those who have left us. I know Hughes had a great legacy, but really? A full ten minutes?

Did like: Michael Giacchino’s score for UP. Loved his win, although the massive dance routine featuring segments of nominated scores was a complete “what the…?” The dancing was in no way related to either the music or the films the music was from. Some guy I saw doing street crumping to a jazz-inspired piece from UP, a film which in no way lends itself to urban street music. What on earth was Adam Shankman (who directed Hairspray, among other things) thinking when he put this shite together? Didn’t like that!

Bravo Win Moment: The Cove for Best Documentary. I saw a “making of” piece about this film a year or so ago, and thought it could be a serious contender. Glad to see it made it. Awful issues the film raises, but well made, by all accounts.

Did like: Neil Patrick Harris’ opening number was dynamite and hilarious, although there appeared to be some sound issues because it was hard to make out what he was saying at times. Love his work in How I Met Your Mother, and so not expecting him to open the Oscars. Great surprise.

Sigh, I do miss those film parodies Billy Crystal used to do.

Aside from feuding producer/directors storming the stage, this years Oscar ceremony went almost as everyone predicted: winners and all. There were virtually no surprises (aside from the sound guys from Hurt Locker winning over the more accomplished Star Trek, Transformers 2 and Avatar…. what the?) and consequently, the most unremarkable Oscars telecast yet. If this ceremony is remembered for only one thing, it’s Katherine Bigelow’s stunning win for directing Hurt Locker, the first female to do so in Oscars 80+ years. Our congratulations go to Ms Bigelow for this feat.

There’s my thoughts, random as they were.

Discuss.

Having recently upgraded the fernbyfilms.com home cinema to BluRay, I thought I’d give you my impressions on it as a format, for those of you who haven’t decided to embrace the new technology yet. My highly successful article on BluRay discs and associated stuff can be found here, and it’s worth a quick read if you don’t know what all the fuss is about.

When DVD came along, the significant difference between the new format and VHS was profound. An improvement in picture and sound fidelity offered film lovers and home cinema addicts a new level of entertainment: sharper picture and multi-channel digital sound could only serve to enhance the viewing experience. It was a similar improvement for CD over cassette tape. The era of digital technology was upon us, and as we all now know, DVD became the fastest uptake of any technology on the planet, in the history of the world. It has since become the de facto standard for movie releases to the consumer market.

So what about BluRay, the newfangled technology advertised on TV alongside DVD? Most people either don’t understand it, or don’t care. Fair enough, because it’s only been 13 years or so since DVD was launched, which by most peoples standards is still a “new”technology. Has the advent of high definition disc technology (parallel with HD streaming downloads from the Internet and other entertainment platforms) given us just another excuse to update our movie collection yet again, or is it a case of too much too soon?

To continue reading my thoughts on BluRay, click here!!

I don’t think Avatar should win the Oscar for Best Film this year. I know it’ll be nominated, but it shouldn’t win.

Cameron’s mega-budget sci-fi outing, which we’ve reviewed already on this site and pointed out it’s shortcomings, will go down as the least “besty” best picture should it take home the gong come March 7th. Personally, it’s one of those years when it’s likely Avatar will win based solely on technical and financial achievements, rather that an enduring legacy to film. Which is disappointing. Cameron’s ex-wife, Katherine Bigelow, should be the one to clap the loudest with her film, The Hurt Locker, having the lions share of critical praise: most pundits have her film as being the best of the year already. It’s this film that should rightly be favourite at the moment. Avatar isn’t among the top five films I’ve seen this year. I haven’t seen them all, either, but among those I have, I wouldn’t give the award to Avatar.

With the Golden Globes being run and won earlier this week, many will look to the cinematic entries’ performances as the key indicator as to who should win the little gold man in a few weeks. Avatar cleaned up the major award, as did Cameron for direction. The best result for me personally was Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor for his role of a violent Nazi Jew-hunter in Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. We predict he’ll win the Oscar for the same category this year, and this one we think is actually earned. If he doesn’t, then we want Stan Tucci to get it for his (apparently) stunning turn in Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. I’ve always loved Stanleys work in film (including Sidewalks of New York, Save The Last Dance, and The Devil Wears Prada). Michael Giacchino won for his score of Up, Pixar’s latest which should also clean up the Best Animated Film award come Oscar time.

We’ll get around to our Oscar tips after the nominations have been released later next month, but those are just a few of our initial thoughts. Remember, this years Best Picture category is going to be a swollen one this time, as the Academy has decided to allow 10 nominees for the grand prize. Whether this reduces or enhances the stature of those ten film remains to be seen, although considering the Dark Knight debacle last time out (when the film wasn’t nominated, and should have been) it may reduce the inherent discomfort for the Academy getting it wrong.

In any case, we’ll stand by our initial statement. Avatar should not win for Best Picture. It’s not the best picture.

Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow....

Came across this news article online today, which stated that Johnny Depp has accepted a deal to star in the 4th Pirates Of The Caribbean film, On Stranger Tides. The tone of the article suggested that this figure is grossly disproportionate to what the film would be worth, and I have to say, I disagree strongly.

Johnny Depp’s name alone will draw in a profit for this film, although this might prove invalid if the film does poorly, considering teen-scream heartthrob Orlando Bloom, and female co-star Keira Knightley will not be reprising their roles this time around. The lure of Orlando was thought to have propelled the original Pirates film to success, although in recent times, the series has focused more on Depp than anything else.

While many may scream that this is an outrageous amount of money to throw at somebody to accept a role, it goes without saying that the film will make buckets, and so, Depp should stand to reap the reward for his effort. I don’t deny that perhaps the best part of that salary would be better served to feed the poor or some other noble cause, but since we live in a world of commercial gain and demand vs cost, then I am not surprised. However, should the film tank, then that will be a different story.

Unfortunately, too much emphasis is placed on how much a film cost to make, or how overpaid the stars were, or other nonsense, which often detracts from how good or bad the film actually is. Remember Waterworld? People wrote the film off even before it’s release due to the fact the film cost the best part of a squillion dollars to make due to sets being destroyed, re-shoots, and other stuff like that. And Titanic, which cost half a billion dollars (at the time) to make and market? Okay, so my Waterworld argument doesn’t hold water (ha!) but just because a film costs a bazillion dollars, doesn’t automatically make it a crap film. And just because Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp can command that kind of price range for a film doesn’t make them any less competent actors.

So before we judge whether Depps price tag for Pirates 4 is worthwhile, lets actually see the film first!

****************************

“No, I’m Miiiiike Looooooowry.”

When Michael Bay unleashed Bad Boys upon an unsuspecting world back in 1995, little did we all realise just what an impact the filmmaker would eventually have on Hollywood, and a legion of filmmakers since. Bombastic, explosive, filled with humor both lowbrow and slapstick, Bad Boys set the tone for Bay’s career as a purveyor of epic widescreen action.Today, many would class Bay as the cinematic equivalent of Dan Brown in literary circles, Bay’s films more inclined to explosions and destruction at the expense of things like, oh, logic and plot. Many critics have taken pot-shots at Bay’s work throughout the years, describing it as anything from “inane” to “intellectually offensive”, barely pausing to recognise the merits of Bays work.
Merits? you ask incredulously, jaw gaping at the mention of the word in the same breath as Michael Bay. Yes, I say merits, for they exist in Bay’s current oeuvre. Might be hard to imagine, but the point of this article is to try and balance the ledger in favour of Bay as a filmmaker, in spite of the enormous negative energy directed his way by critics and internet hacks alike. Rather than subscribing to the energy and fun Bay tries to bring to his projects, many people seem more content to jeer and mock a man who has more talent in his little finger than most do in their entire body. I like think the only reason Roland Emmerich made 2012 was to ensure he kept the title of having destroyed the most earthly real estate on screen; after all, who’d want Bay to hold that honour?
Okay, so I am an unashamed fan of Bay’s work; and considering two of my all time favourite films are his, it goes without saying that I could possibly be Bay’s biggest defender, or biggest apologist. For the longest time, Armageddon was my number one film, although this was supplanted more recently by Transformers, a film that showed me just how much the director had grown since Bruce Willis saved us all. I remember thinking that The Rock, in which Bay purported a political agenda regarding military veterans and their treatment by the government, was one hell of an action film, a tour de force in action cinema that gave us the now classic line from Sean Connery: “You’re best? Losers always whine about ‘their best’! Winners go home and f*** the prom queen!” To which Nicolas Cage retorts in his petulant way, “Carla was the prom queen!”. Such dialogue and snappy banter is a trademark of Bay’s films, although the quality of such scripting appears to have waned in recent years in order to accommodate more explosions and effects. Bay has attempted on at least two occasions to deliver more sobering, patriotic and hard-edged filmmaking, with Pearl Harbor, and The Island, the former which was critically mauled at the time of it’s release, and appears to have become a mere footnote in Bay’s resume to this date.
Critics have derided his filmmaking ability since he came of age in Armageddon, flexing his cinematic muscles while simultaneously exploding logic into testosterone-fueled oblivion. But are they justified in their bile towards one of the industries most successful directors. In terms of his bankability, Bay ranks up alongside Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and James Cameron for an ability to draw a crowd based upon his name alone. There are few directors working today who can claim such success. But if his film appear to herald a glimpse into the gaping maw of cinematic sewerage, as so many critics and fanboys seem to think, why do his films keep being successful? Think about it. Bay has never had a flop, although Pearl Harbor comes about as close as he ever has to one. Both Transformers films blew records out of the water, The Island was a success (if only in the home cinema market) and even Bad Boys II, a film which, to be honest, I didn’t like all that much, was a financial winner. A filmmaker who thrives on explosions and frenetic chases and gunplay must surely be at the lower tier of Hollywood elite, right?

So how does a former music-video directing man-child go from directing Meatloaf in “I’d Do Anything For Love” to Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen? What is the arc that takes us on this journey, and is it a good one, regardless of financial success? After all, here is a man famous for his on-set ferocity and bullish work ethic, both of which have garnered praise and condemnation from cast and crew on his films. Is a temperament like Bay’s a guarantee of success? Is it conducive to a good working environment, as long as the result is achieved? And what journey does Bay take us on over the course of his career to date? We’ll attempt to find out as we take a look at Bay’s films, his legacy and his failures.

To continue reading, click here for more BAYHEM!!!

Hey all, check out our latest poll!!! Which Batman film do you think ranks as the best of all time?????

n