-
[quote=cargirl1990;892627]is Micheal Bay that bad of a director?[/quote]
No he's not *that* bad, He just tries to make action movies that the girls can enjoy too (thus the romance parts). He treads a thin line of massive action scenes and quiet romance - Which is hard at the best of times, but when your movie consists of half the screen filled with exploding robots it gets hard to balance.
I for one don't mind the lovey-dovey sequences, and i think they add to the movie in transformers. Pearl Harbour was fifteen minutes of good action with one and a half hours of drama tacked on.
-
[quote=whiteballz;892636] Pearl Harbour was fifteen minutes of good action with one and a half hours of drama tacked on.[/quote]
Which felt more like 4 hours of drama. After I saw it, I couldnt believe it could be called an "action" movie.
-
[quote=whiteballz;892636]No he's not *that* bad, He just tries to make action movies that the girls can enjoy too (thus the romance parts). He treads a thin line of massive action scenes and quiet romance - Which is hard at the best of times, but when your movie consists of half the screen filled with exploding robots it gets hard to balance.
I for one don't mind the lovey-dovey sequences, and i think they add to the movie in transformers. Pearl Harbour was fifteen minutes of good action with one and a half hours of drama tacked on.[/quote]
[quote=Sledgehammer;892644]Which felt more like 4 hours of drama. After I saw it, I couldnt believe it could be called an "action" movie.[/quote]
i can't stand romance in movies. i find it very unrealistic.
-
*I miss you more than Michael Bay Missed the Mark, when he made Pearl Harbour*
Yeah that's right, HARBOUR HAS A U YOU IDIOTS.
Also, Transformers 1 > Transformers 2.
Anyone else reminded of like...Indiana Jones, for some reason?
I mean, minus the death-murder-explosive-headshot-kill robots and Megan Fox's fine self?
-
1 Attachment(s)
[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;892688]
Yeah that's right, HARBOUR HAS A U YOU IDIOTS.
[/quote]
Settle down. It's a North American thing...;)
-
Thus my problem with it.
And American spelling laziness is being forced upon the world with the advent of the personal computer. Children grow up thinking the proper way to spell things is incorrect because some crappy digital paperclip tells them so!
What does this have to do with Michael Bay? I don't really care. But for the love of god spell things properly.....
-
Don't ask me dude........you're the one that's on a non-medicated rant.:D
-
[quote=cargirl1990;892627]is Micheal Bay that bad of a director?[/quote]
He's one of the worst atm.
and now I'm wondering why I wrote on this thread.
-
[quote=ThisBlood147;892703]Don't ask me dude........you're the one that's on a non-medicated rant.:D[/quote]
I'm Medicated.
You should see me when I'm not doped up to my eyeballs on Haterade.
-
[quote=ThisBlood147;892692]Settle down. It's a North American thing...;)[/quote]
No it isn't. In the true north strong and free we spell things properly as well.
If you're gonna go on an anti-French spelling extravaganza you may as well spell everything in English phonetically and that ain't happening anytime soon.
I embrace my u's. I think colour without a u looks horrible.
-
to colour without honour is to enter a harbour without valour.
does that even make sense? no, but it's a good representation of just how lazy "American" english is.
-
It isn't laziness, I believe the lack of using u is because of anti-French sentiments sometime. Wikipedia... Here we are. I was wrong.
[quote]Differences in orthography are also trivial. Some of the forms that now serve to distinguish American from British spelling (color for colour, center for centre, traveler for traveller, etc.) were introduced by Noah Webster himself; others are due to spelling tendencies in Britain from the 17th century until the present day (e.g. -ise for -ize, although the Oxford English Dictionary still prefers the -ize ending) and cases favored by the francophile tastes of 19th century Victorian England, which had little effect on AmE (e.g. programme for program, manoeuvre for maneuver, skilful for skillful, cheque for check, etc.).[/quote]
It has nothing to do with laziness. It has something to do with a dictionary writer liking the French language though.