Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 2, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I think it's because Michael Bay is a lowest common denominator filmmaker, and that his style is one of pretty shameless excess designed to appeal to as many people as possible. That means that he is able to connect with audiences when the subject matter is right - i.e. people are more likely to watch his films about giant robots hitting each other than his ham-fisted satire about Miami bodybuilders - especially because he pretty explicitly positions himself as a purveyor of turn-your-brain-off entertainment. Critics, or at least the ones who aren't among his defenders, look at his films and see them as crass and pandering, with no interest in being anything other than loud and kinetic. In short, critics watch the Transformers films and ask "Why isn't this better?" and audiences watch them and ask "It's giant robots, what did you expect?"
Bruce Hall: Agreed. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with critics who say "It took nine months and spent $175 million to make this movie, would it really have taken THAT much more effort to write a better story?"
No. It probably wouldn't. But these movies are the way they are because this is what people continue to approve of with their hard earned dollars.
Critics tend to watch movies for the purpose of immersing themselves in an engaging narrative. If the next $200 million movie about Giant Robots vs Aliens vs Predators vs the Kardashians starring Tom Cruise Running has a $150 million opening weekend, and exit tracking indicates a demand for thoughtful, poignant narrative in action movies, then they would start making those kinds of films the next morning.
If enough of us stayed away from the next Avengers flick and went to a Tyler Perry film instead, every African-American screenwriter in America would be working on the Justice League movie by sundown.
But what Joe Moviegoer seems to want is little more than a visceral diversion from every day life. Most of the people I know can't tell me what a movie is about when they like it, let alone when they don't. I don't think it matters to them any more than it does what the names of all the fish are when they look at an aquarium. I realize how cynical that sounds, but I wouldn't say it if I didn't see it reflected in the increasingly bland, homogenized, action packed - but event free action movies that we keep getting.
If one wanted to be even more cynical, one could argue that Bay and the majority of the decision makers in Hollywood are not artists, but business people. Bay knows what he is, freely admits why he does what he does, and consistently lives up to those expectations on both sides of the screen. And, audiences reward him for it almost every time. This is what he's paid to do, because no matter what audiences say with their mouths, it's what they say with their wallets that really matters.
Felix Quinonez: I think a very key factor with the Cinemascores is that those audiences are polled on opening night. The ones grading the movies are people who really wanted to see the movie. They were excited about it and went in ready to like it. On the other hand, I also believe that a lot of critics go into a Michael Bay movie ready to hate it.
Jason Barney: I think the average movie goer is getting pinched financially, as there really has not been any regression in ticket prices despite the economy being crappy. Films like this tend to be "event" openings, and you get a lot of people who just want to be distracted from the ups and downs of everyday life. They hate their boss, work is stressful, etc. If they can go to the theater, have the family together and semi satisfied, even if the material is not fabulous, then they will. I am not saying it makes perfect sense, but the money amount of money doesn't lie.
Also, I am of the opinion that there are a good number of people who walk out LIKING these movies. They understand there are going to be stunts, chase scenes, and explosions that just don't make sense, but I think they accept the subject matter is from a cartoon from the 1980s.
Yes, I wish the films were better, but you just can't argue with the results.
I guess another way of looking at it would be to ask how much money these films would make if they were actually good.
David Mumpower: I will say what we are all thinking. The Transformers franchise is a cinematic cockroach. People stomp on it repeatedly yet it keeps coming back, and it multiplies every time. Bay has found that amazing piece of real estate where nothing he does matters in the least. People want to hate his films while still attending them. And he could not care less. His power comes from the box office, not the reception of the films nor their memory. The funny part for me is that there is absolutely no difference between the movie offerings of Uwe Boll and Michael Bay. For whatever reason, people continue to support Bay even as they hate his work. Boll is the unlucky one. Well, the people who watch either of their films are the unlucky ones, but you get the point.
Kim Hollis: I'd agree with Felix's comment that the type of people most likely to see a Transformers movie on opening night are already inclined to respond favorably to the film with a positive review. Critics also have to maintain their street cred by ripping the movie apart (I paused for about a moment to wonder if Armond White reviewed it positively, and then wondered if there is even anyone publishing his work anymore). It's a very weird disconnect to see the difference in public versus critical opinion, but I suppose if people are just looking for escapism, Transformers 4 is good enough.