You crazy, I'd have to go with the ones you bolded as poor, and the non-bolded ones as good.

@jalsonmi
i understand what you mean ,cause i share the same directorial goals as you
mechael bay would be a bad bad choice,because metroid surely isnt meant to be an all out action movie but a sci-fi one which might be beyond Bay.
if i had to choose, it would surely be one of the "alien" directors, Scott or
James Cameron.although these guys are too big for a metroid project.
and please, fleshing out the character of han solo and casting ford deserves credit
whereas the indiana jones movies arent all good, ya know, so the talented
director screws up too.in star wars(original trilogy) i feel , except for some bad acting, there wasnt much to dislike

would be interesting to see a Metroid movie

God, Transformers was shit.

I thought John Woo was doing a Metroid movie. Whatever happened to that?

Somewhere, all the hair just stood up on the back of Rocketpig's neck, and he has no idea why.

Just learn to follow what is happening. I can follow his movies.

My whole family can.

Just get faster eyes and shut up.


Sorry, I am just sick of people blaming Michael Bay because they can't follow his editing. And that does seem to be the most common complaint. Yet if the editing were truly bad, why aren't more people turned off by that? It seems they don't mind. This is not about quality. Being able to follow camera work should be an ability, not taste.

So that means People who like his movies don't have bad taste. They can just follow those movies better.

It's not that people don't understand "his editing," it's that it's a battle of endurance to get through the broken plot, blurry and poor camera angles, and shitty dialogue just so you can see some decent special effects.  

I shouldn't be working to tolerate the majority of the movie just for the one good part (the effects), and if he fucks up the plot of Metroid as much as he's fucked up the plot of everything else he's ever worked on, I am going to run him down.  

James Cameron would be a great choice, as long as it's circa Aliens/Terminator 1 and 2 great director and not The Abyss/Titanic blech director. But he's still probably the best choice.

No, not all the Indiana Jones movies are good. I haven't seen the latest one yet, but Raiders is fantastic and Last Crusade is very good and yeah, Temple of Doom kinda blows (but then again so does most mid-80s Spielberg). However overall they're still better than the Star Wars films. To whit:

1. As you say, the acting. No, it's not true...it isn't possible...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Surprisingly poorly staged action. The lightsaber battles in the first three movies are almost all ridiculously bad. The ones in the second trilogy are two slick and don't look light real sword play, but at least they're well placed on the screen. Mark Hamill flails amaturishly about while David Prowse does his best to move with any grace in a big plastic suit. It's goofy looking, really.

3. Leaden pacing. Everything goes on to long and focuses on things that simply don't matter. The random crap in the trash compactor in the first film. The Droids in the desert scene in the first film as well. The Whompa scene in Empire. The scene between Leia and Wicket in Jedi (really, aything with the Ewoks in Jedi. Good god they're irritating).

4. Frequently awful dialogue. Everythings a mouthful. There may be some good stuff sprinkled throughout (though usually it's delivered by Ford--Who's scruffy looking? springs to mind) but much of the dialogue, especially that dealing with the Force, is laughably bad. It's only covered up by the strength of conviction of Alec Guinness, another actor that nearly saves the first film (though if you want to see Alec Guinness REALLY act, see The Bridge on the River Kwai. Amazing movie).

But sure, I'll give Lucas credit for casting Ford. Especially knowing the story of how he cast Ford, he deserves all the credit for it, really. That doesn't mean his movies are any good other than Ford.

As an aside, I think a funny thing I should mention is that at my film school (USC), most of my classes take place in the George Lucas Instructional Building. He is, of course, the most famous graduate of USC's film school. Spielberg was actually rejected from USC (apparently he had a C average in High School), and ended up going to Long Beach State, but is now a trustee at USC.

A hell of a lot of people are turned off by it, actually. As Naznatips said, though, it's not that people can't followthe editing, it's that it's terribly done. You can have hyper kinetic editing without doing it as awfully as it is in his films. Mouon Rouge! had many more edits per minute than any Michael Bay film, but it's not done poorly in that film, so it's not an issue. Michael Bay rarely shows you anything with his edits. They don't go to anything in particular, they don't create any tension, they don't really do anything other than put two disparate frames of film together one after the other. I hesitate to even all it juxtaposition, because when you juxtapose two things you are putting them next two each other in order to contrast them, and there's very little contrasting of images to create a whole in Bay's editing style. It also doesn't do the other thing editing is supposed to do--create visual rhythm. When you get that much thrown at you at once you stop feelign the rhythm, and instead is because equivalent to white noise--it creates as much tension as if there were no edits at all. Less tension, even, because we are so accustomed to montage that the lack of it can cause tension.  Not so with Bay's films. It's just a contsant assualt to get inured to.

I once saw a great review of Bad Boys II that started "Somewhere on the floor of the editing room for Bad Boys II lies the greatest car chase ever shot on film." It's not on the screen, though, because of the butcher job done by the editor.