Is Michael Bay this generation's Roger Corman?

[eegah]

The only difference that I can see is that Michael Bay has bigger budgets. Otherwise, their movies seem to be flawed in similar ways.

[Crazy_88s]

Roger Corman's movies have very cheesy effects, and are deathly slow and boring... and let's face it, as bad as things like Armageddon and Bad boys are, they still have 100x the heart of any Roger Corman movie.

[Almighty dF]

Carnivore 1-3 will always be better than anything Michael Bay has churned out.
I'm sorry but it's true.

[Crazy_88s]

True as in your opinion. Worse than Carnivore 1-3? That's not a stretch, that's a leap across the grand canyon.In fact, that's the most goddamn stupidest thing I have ever heard all day. But enough with opinions, let me give you some facts in case you actually cannot read: First off, on the rotten tomatoes website, the score for all of Michael Bays films, while not all that great is still a lot higher then a hell of a lot of other films, which is not limited to but includes yes, that's right, Carnosaur, which has a very piss poor 11%. Furthermore, all of his movies score much, much higher on the IMDB. For example, The Island has a 6.9 out of 10, Pearl Harbor has a 5.3 out of 10, and Bad Boys II has a 6.1 out of 10. Carnosaur 1, 2 and 3 have the scores 3.6,  2.4, and a 1.9, respectively. What does this mean? I know these figures may be skewed to some extent, but this lends at least some credence to the argument that people and critics alike like Michael Bays movies a hell of a lot better than Carnosaur. In other words, if nothing else, public and critical opinion is not on your side.

[DarthSeaBass]

I know armageddon is shit but it's up there with the shawshank redemption compared to transformers.

[PsypherPunk]

Not even close. Corman may have made some bad films but he was a remarkable producer and undeniably creative when it came to some extremely limited budgets. Bay, on the other hand, has some truly intimidating budgets and lacks seemingly any real, creative imagination.

Uwe Boll, I would say, is closer if only because he tends to work with lower budgets and there's no denying he's one hell of a producer (he still manages to rustle up millions of dollars and world class actors for his films). Too bad he's such a terrible director.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Uwe Boll is in a class all his own...though this isn't a good thing when it comes to him. He is quite incomparable when it comes to sucking at his art form.

[mrbasehart]

Corman's made some great movies, they just seem to get overshadowed by some of the cheap rubbish he did.  Seriously, anyone who thinks Corman is a bad director should check out the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations he did in the 60s with people like Vincent Price. 

[Sideswipe]

Bay, on the other hand, has some truly intimidating budgets and lacks seemingly any real, creative imagination.

Well Transformers had a budget of about 150 million.  I wouldnt consider that intimidating at all by todays standards.

[Tripe]

Corman's made some great movies, they just seem to get overshadowed by some of the cheap rubbish he did.  Seriously, anyone who thinks Corman is a bad director should check out the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations he did in the 60s with people like Vincent Price. 

Absolutley, The Black Cat is excellent and The Masque of the Red Death

[MontyServo]

The Rock was pretty good.  And I enjoyed Transformers for what it was, a big loud popcorn movie.  I will concede that the rest of his movies are either dreck or seem like dreck.

Dude, Battle Beyond the Stars isn't slow or boring.

I'll see your Battle Beyond The Stars and raise you a Rock 'N' Roll High School.

[Crazy_88s]

As for Michael Bay, I actually, erm..._{enjoyed The Island}.

There's nothing wrong with that.

[Nunyerbiz]

Short of god awful stuff like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor... I like most of his movies. The Rock and the original Bad Boys being two movies that I can't seem to channel surf away from if I stumble upon them during a rainy saturday afternoon.

Hard to compare him to Roger Corman. I know a lot of film buff types like to say he did good work... and I'm sure he did. Of course, didn't he direct something like 70 movies? Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.

[MikeKz]

No, because Michael Bay doesn't receive excessive praise for his work. 

I quote Mary Jo Pehl from the MST3K episode guide as she comments on the Corman movie, Teenage Caveman.

"Let's put an end to all this hooey that Roger Corman is somehow a respectable director just because he gave Jonathan Demme, Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante, Jack Nicholson, and Coppola their first breaks.  Roger Corman is a horrible director.  Now, it could be argued that he wasn't trying to make good films, just films that came in under budget, but that doesn't nullify the fact that his films are punishingly dreadful."

[Crazy_88s]

No, because Michael Bay doesn't receive excessive praise for his work. 
I quote Mary Jo Pehl from the MST3K episode guide as she comments on the Corman movie, Teenage Caveman.
"Let's put an end to all this hooey that Roger Corman is somehow a respectable director just because he gave Jonathan Demme, Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante, Jack Nicholson, and Coppola their first breaks.  Roger Corman is a horrible director.  Now, it could be argued that he wasn't trying to make good films, just films that came in under budget, but that doesn't nullify the fact that his films are punishingly dreadful."

THANK YOU!