Tora, Tora, Tora is great for being a film made in 1970. But just the same- it was made in 1970. So as great as that movie is, in the days of 4k ultra, surround sound and big screens, I can't help but wonder how absolutely stunning TTT would be if it had Pearl Harbor's technology. The chances of this story ever being done again are slim but if it is done, and done right. That movie will be something else.
sharei came in here ready to lambast you, but your content was different from your subject. A recreated 'Tora3' with modern tech would be great, but a 'Tora3' with this ham fisted directors ideaof cinema would STILL be crap. Impossible aerial combat is still impossible aerial combat.
shareAgree with you, Spilt. Despite using '70 technology (models, basically) the attack still looks more realistic than the Bay bombast. Given a director intent on delivering the truth, the OP is right, it could be a fantastic film.
Hell, given a different director even slightly interested in the truth and a good story, PH could have been a fantastic film.
Very true.
I was actually really looking forward to Pearl Harbor. And there were parts of it which were good, All in all though, I felt it was like eating scrambled eggs made with 1 good egg and 2 rotten eggs. The overall experience was unpleasant.
Pearl Harbor did have one redeeming quality though, it made me start looking at directors rather than actors to decide if a movie was worthy of my hard earned cash. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure I've seen 'Bay' movies after Pearl, but went in knowing what to expect. In fact, I know I've seen 'Transformers', and never expected a historical accurate film, so could relax. However, Michael Bay's 'The Battle of Britain' or 'Caesars Invasion of Gaul' would not see my cash.
But would you bother to watch the Michael Bay produced Black Sails which while serves as a prequel to Treasure Island brings in actual history into its story? Truly one of the most underrated shows on TV.
sharea producer isn't the same as a director. And given it's a TV show (I think) I wouldn't have much problem watching anything I'd had recommended to me (although I don't watch much T.V.) as I can turn it off without feeling I've wasted money.
SpiltPersonality
Correct, but his name is on it and he does have certain says on it creatively.
Also, dude, we're on IMDb, you can easily type it up in the search engine and you'll see Black Sails IS a TV show...And it's an awesome one, binge away and don't give up on it.
Redo Tora Tora Tora with a team like that which produced Band of Brothers and The Pacific... THAT would be good.
But Michel Bay needs to be forcefully removed from ANY historical or true to life project.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
You've got it all wrong GC.
Re-do Band of Brothers and The Pacific with Michael Bay at the helm!!!
Complete with political correct African American and Asian members of the 101 Screaming Eagles!
Stuff it, completely re-do the cast with FEMALE asian and african American members!
Don't feed him, he'll just go on a huge, unnecessary long rant about how the world is going through the "dumb-pocalypse" and that Bay is the one who is the evil entity behind all of it.
Also, hate to be that guy to remind you fellas but Spielberg, the guy who helped fund Band of Brothers and The Pacific...Also has helped fund more work for Mr. Bay, so you both can associate him for assisting in the "dumb-pocalypse"...
GC is fine. Most of people don't understand what he's saying (which is fine) and get into unnecessary arguments with him (which is also fine) and then whine when he tears into them (which is just stupid).
They also get into pissing competitions with him about one of two things that he's passionate about, politics and military history (particularly naval military history). And the spelling of 'Harbour vs Harbor in "Pearl Harbor'"'.
GC and I are politically poles apart, so I don't waste my time and effort trying to convince him that my view is right and his is wrong... because it's a waste of time. I'm not going to change his mind, so why bother? Life's too short.
When it comes to military history he's got a wealth of information and is willing to share it. He'll write at great length on a topic to answer a question and defend that if someone disrespects it when it's 100% on point. He (and I) has a problem with Bay. I'm not even American and I was literally NAUSEATED at Pearl Harbor. The director used one of the most infamous events in American history and used it as a sexual lubricant akin to someone using a rape crisis centre to 'pick up loose women'. Bay is quite literally a disgusting excuse for a human being when he puts on his directors hat, and GC isn't shy in calling him out on it.
But you kbow what is worse? It isn't Bay... it's society that gives him their money. Bay could be removed from Hollywood and never seen again by boycotting his next directorial crapfest, but they wont... and THAT is the sad thing.
The problem with CGSailor isn't their extensive knowledge about politics or military history or the goal of their arguments, their problem is that they seem to have an ego problem and they don't project a particularly welcoming tone in their writings. Its one thing to say "X movie has so and so problems" and "Not feeling this director did enough justice to the material they were working from" it's quite another to say "X movie is totally bullsh!t, the director is scum with an idiotic fan base". Compare the two and the chances of a response that could break into an argument will surely come about to one and not the other, just saying. There's no excuse for unwelcomed and unappreciated behavior on an online community as things usually go.
No, what's worse is calling a person a "disgusting excuse for a human being" based on their profession and when they're doing it when you've never met said person before or seen them at their job, just the same it's also wrong to generalize society as a whole who continue to pay to see their work. If you are not a fan, fine, but when you take dislike to a different, unnecessary level then it's just silly. Same with thinking your preferences in entertainment/choices in spending make you better than everybody else.
Pain & Gain and 13 Hours were both very good, Black Sails which has historical tie ins is one of the most underrated shows on TV now.
sharePain and Gain is a comedy, Historical tie in or not.
13 Hours I refused to see precisely because it was Michael Bay directing.
I have heard from others that 13 hours was decent and not too over the top, but that only goes to show that even a broke watch is right twice a day.
I have not had opportunity to see Black Sails yet, However, Michael bay is NOT a director of the show.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Yes Pain & Gain is a comedy, a really dark one, your point exactly?
13 Hours was very good, treated the material seriously and didn't sugar coat a thing, it is also Bay at his most restraint from a technical point of view with only anamorphic lens flares, teal and orange color grading, and occasional slanted/low angles being present but that's essentially it.
Bay is a producer on Black Sails and puts money into its production budget and some a few things to say creatively and his involvement is highlighted in the show's marketing. Anyway, the show is good and you're missing out big time. But go ahead, continue to say Bay is the bringer of the "dumb-pocalypse" and all those who sprint to see the latest with his name on it are uneducated, poop throwing, baboons.
Bay is a producer on Black Sails and puts money into its production budget
Yes Pain & Gain is a comedy, a really dark one, your point exactly?
But go ahead, continue to say Bay is the bringer of the "dumb-pocalypse"
I got no problem if he wants to back and fund a project. it's his Directing that stinks to high heaven.
The point is that comedies are not meant to be taken seriously.
I love Down Periscope. But you don't see me trashing the film and calling it stupid because of all the gross Naval inaccuracies. Why? Because it is a COMEDY.
Dark or Not.. Pain and Gain is a comedy, Any unrealism is just that.
OK so lets set the record... You think that in a film about a real historical event, where the film is supposed to be portraying the real events... that Having planes fly like cartoon caricatures in complete defiance of all real physics... is perfectly acceptable?
What would it have hurt the film to show the planes flying like they really do and fighting as they really fight? Especially in a film supposedly of a real event?
You answer that and you can either convince me I am wrong about Bay.. or consign yourself to be one of the "uneducated, poop throwing, baboons". (YOUR words, not mine)
All movies are going to have inaccuracies, whether or not people can get by them is up to them, really, they let themselves feel like their intelligence is insulted because they choose to feel a certain way for reasons that are fair or anything. That said, yes, seeing such a thing is absurd but not a total deal breaker for me when watching a movie, story and characters come first.
it is however not too smart a thing to assume how a person you've never met feels about their audiences
But that there is the rub with Directors like Bay.
They rely on Eye Candy and flashy and highly UNREALISTIC effects as a crutch, to excuse the poor characters and plot.
Yes, all movies are going to have inaccuracies, true.
Most however try to keep them to a minimal as much as possible.
Bay does not even try and in fact has gone out of his way to CAUSE goofs that would have been easier to have done right in the first place.
It is insulting.
Apparently there are a lot of people too stupid or uncaring to even notice they are being insulted.
I have studied this thread and Coastguard Sailor has an interesting life stories hana
shareThey must not have too many friends I'm guessing, at least online anyway given the way they present themselves. I figure indy_go_blue44 and SplitPersonality are among his small circle of friends here which means their views must echo theirs, i.e. this 15 year old movie scarred them for life and it must hated on till they cannot type anymore(Most normal people who just shrug it off and move on), Michael Bay must be singled out and dubbed the worst living director today(Harsh) and those who flock to see whatever product carries his name on it are beings of lesser intelligence who are pulling society down into the ground(Geez, if anything I think more would be concerned about other more important problems facing the world than a guy who generally makes mindless summer action flicks). In other words, obsession mixed with ego.
shareI had this to say on the Bay: Genius or Hack thread:
A bit of both. He needs to stay away from historical fiction though, and thankfully since his attack on PH he's managed to do that.
I can understand why you and some other people would take offense, and you have every right to feel so but others who are willing to disregard the liberties taken in the film it really just boils down to how people in general and what they consider to be complementary or insulting. Other people will just deem it as a 15 year old movie that tried but did not quite succeed in trying to capitalize two trends into one product - Love stories with historical events used as a backdrop(Titanic) and the resurgence in epic war films after Saving Private Ryan. Hollywood has capitalized on trends before and will continue to do so in experimentation with other films that will continue to delivers results that are good or bad and sometimes few in between. This film in particular is really a "coulda, woulda, shoulda" type, I appreciate the effort but its attempt to capitalize on two different trends only resulted in conflict of tone by trying to represent the grit of contemporary war pictures while trying to use the feel of razzle dazzle Hollywood spectacles of the 40's and 50's. The latter worked well for their time, but for a contemporary war drama in the early 00's it was out of date and is even moreso today. But oh well, it came out 15 years ago and everything that needed to be said has already been said, and in five more years when it turns twenty the "oh well, had potential but what can you do?..." perception that goes with it today will be there then.
And as mentioned earlier, the problem with CGSailor isn't their extensive knowledge about politics or military history or the goal of their arguments, their problem is that they seem to have an ego problem and they don't project a particularly welcoming tone in their writings. Its one thing to say "X movie has so and so problems" and "Not feeling this director did enough justice to the material they were working from" it's quite another to say "X movie is totally bullsh!t, the director is scum with an idiotic fan base". Compare the two and the chances of a response that could break into an argument will surely come about to one and not the other, just saying. There's no excuse for unwelcomed and unappreciated behavior on an online community as things usually go. This is why people have problems with him, its not his knowledge or the general idea of his opinion its how he expresses them - The man clearly has issues.
COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed
But it was Jerry Bruckheimer and Randall Wallace who wanted to make a Titanic inspired romantic movie with the events of Pearl Harbor as the backdrop before Michael Bay even came on board as the director, if he didn't direct the movie probably wouldn't have been much different and you'd still be upset by the final result most likely. True enough Bay made his own creative decisions when he took the job, but it wasn't his baby from start to finish, he was a hired gun who just went into the direction the studio wanted him to.
share