i really hope he doesn't get it (pearl harbour sucked, especially in a historical sense" the 2nd world war started in 1941 when japan bombed pearl harbour" BOLLOCKs it was 1938 when germany invaded poland) i really REALLY hope he's not director (goes to don muphey's board to see if it is truth)

Well in all honesty, the US didn't get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. It wasn't supposed to insinuate that that was how WWII itself started but the events that got the US got involved in it. (in essence thats when WWII began for the US) So in that sense it wasn't historically inaccurate.

it's just the fact that in the movie there wasn't even any reference to there being a war (apart from 5 minutes)

Uhhh... a key plot point of Pearl Harbor was that the Ben Asslick character was tired of the US not joining the fight, so he volunteered to go to the UK and fly with the Brits.

At the same time, let's not underestimate the significance of a director's role. A director may or may not be able to do much with a mediocre script, but we've all seen instances of a mediocre director screwing up a good script.

 

It *is* also possible to have a blow-em-up action film that has characters that you care about. No one is questioning Michael Bay's ability to pull off large-scale action sequences. The concern is the character angle, at least for me. He tends to paint his characters with a very broad brush, and rarely ventures beyond Hollywood stereotype.

 

You may say that "characters" don't matter in a film like this, but I would point you towards X-Men and Spiderman in response. I'm not just interested in a two-hour action sequence. There has to be some emotional connection between the characters and the audience for this film to be memorable in any way, and to date I haven't seen anything Bay has done that would convince me that he could pull that off.

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

 

The real concern over character devleopment should be that they are hiring Bay because the script may already call for a director of his previously established strengths.

At the same time, let's not underestimate the significance of a director's role. A director may or may not be able to do much with a mediocre script, but we've all seen instances of a mediocre director screwing up a good script.

 

It *is* also possible to have a blow-em-up action film that has characters that you care about. No one is questioning Michael Bay's ability to pull off large-scale action sequences. The concern is the character angle, at least for me. He tends to paint his characters with a very broad brush, and rarely ventures beyond Hollywood stereotype.

 

You may say that "characters" don't matter in a film like this, but I would point you towards X-Men and Spiderman in response. I'm not just interested in a two-hour action sequence. There has to be some emotional connection between the characters and the audience for this film to be memorable in any way, and to date I haven't seen anything Bay has done that would convince me that he could pull that off.

I agree :thumb and don't think I could have said it any better sir.

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Lucas was the writer, in plus of the director. So that's different.

All I know is there was plenty of people to had thier doubts when it came to Peter Jackson doing the LOTR movies and look how that turned out. Making any movie is a process, and for it to be good it will depend on a lot more than who's directing it. It takes an entire team from the producers, writers, director, actors, filming crew, f/x team etc... to pull it off.

 

It's easy to blame directors when a movie bombs but in all reality it takes a team effort. The director is just another guy with a job to do and they do it to the best of their ability with the material they were given. Even the best director can't take a dogBlot script and turn it into 24 kt. gold.

 

A lot of people use the the word "magic" when it comes to making great movies, and it doesn't matter who is directing this movie, it's going to need a lot of magic to make it as good as we all hope it will be.

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Lucas was the writer, in plus of the director. So that's different.

okay fine, I'll explain.

 

First of all, he didn't write the second one alone. But my point is this: the scripts for Ep1 and Ep2 aren't bad IMO. In fact I think they're quite good. But they were directed poorly. And that's what I'm trying to say.

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Lucas was the writer, in plus of the director. So that's different.

okay fine, I'll explain.

 

First of all, he didn't write the second one alone. But my point is this: the scripts for Ep1 and Ep2 aren't bad IMO. In fact I think they're quite good. But they were directed poorly. And that's what I'm trying to say.

The dialogue and pacing were atrocious...both writing aspects. But Lucas is also a so-so director. He'd be the first to tell you.

 

Have you actually read the scripts to those two films and compared them to better sci-fi/adventure fare?

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Lucas was the writer, in plus of the director. So that's different.

okay fine, I'll explain.

 

First of all, he didn't write the second one alone. But my point is this: the scripts for Ep1 and Ep2 aren't bad IMO. In fact I think they're quite good. But they were directed poorly. And that's what I'm trying to say.

The dialogue and pacing were atrocious...both writing aspects. But Lucas is also a so-so director. He'd be the first to tell you.

 

Have you actually read the scripts to those two films and compared them to better sci-fi/adventure fare?

pacing = editing... those movies were only two hours long because every shot lasted two-three seconds longer than it needed to. The dialogue could have been given a lot more life if a better director (i.e. one who worked better with actors and who wasn't so impatient) had helmed them.

 

Anyway, with Star Wars I don't expect "great sci-fi" - I only compare the writing to the original movies, and it isn't of a significantly lower quality than the writing in those films. (How many frickin' times did we need to hear "your thoughts betray you" in RotJ?)

 

But this is all a big tangent.

 

All I'm trying to say is that character development matters, and a director is the one who carries the vision for the film. If he's not good with character development, it's not going to be there in the movie. Again, I'm not saying that the TF movie needs to be an art house film or a chick flick. I'm only saying that you can make a kick-butt adventure movie that ALSO features characters you emotionally invest in (Raiders of the Lost Ark being a stellar example).

Michael Bay's not going to be the one to add or remove character from the movie. That will already be, or not be, on the page.

Lucas.

 

 

 

 

'nuff said.

Lucas was the writer, in plus of the director. So that's different.

okay fine, I'll explain.

 

First of all, he didn't write the second one alone. But my point is this: the scripts for Ep1 and Ep2 aren't bad IMO. In fact I think they're quite good. But they were directed poorly. And that's what I'm trying to say.

The dialogue and pacing were atrocious...both writing aspects. But Lucas is also a so-so director. He'd be the first to tell you.

 

Have you actually read the scripts to those two films and compared them to better sci-fi/adventure fare?

pacing = editing... those movies were only two hours long because every shot lasted two-three seconds longer than it needed to. The dialogue could have been given a lot more life if a better director (i.e. one who worked better with actors and who wasn't so impatient) had helmed them.

 

Anyway, with Star Wars I don't expect "great sci-fi" - I only compare the writing to the original movies, and it isn't of a significantly lower quality than the writing in those films. (How many frickin' times did we need to hear "your thoughts betray you" in RotJ?)

 

But this is all a big tangent.

 

All I'm trying to say is that character development matters, and a director is the one who carries the vision for the film. If he's not good with character development, it's not going to be there in the movie. Again, I'm not saying that the TF movie needs to be an art house film or a chick flick. I'm only saying that you can make a kick-butt adventure movie that ALSO features characters you emotionally invest in (Raiders of the Lost Ark being a stellar example).

An editors job is to bring the script to fruition using the shots. They use the script as a blueprint to assemble the final cut. Their job is more to hit beats than to pace the movie. The writer sets the pace.

 

No amount of directorial patience could have coaxed a worthwhile performance from this...

I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I HATE THEM.

 

I mostly agree with what you're saying about character development and the duties of a director, but in this particular circumstance, with the main (hopefully :tftongue) characters being CGI most of the characterization is going to come from back story, and dialogue, and character interaction, which IMO Bay's not going to have much to do with besides direct what's already on the page.