michael bay seems to have a serious thing for 16 year old girls.

Sorry @ant, please don't take this personally.

Fuck you, Michael Bay. You're an awful filmmaker and you haven't managed to elicit 0.01% of the emotion I felt watching the animated Transformers movie as a kid and while that was basically just an extended toy commercial, at least it had... Christ, I dunno... balls? A sense of fun? A stupidly awesome 80s soundtrack?("Dare" is still on my running playlist and it brings a smile to my face every goddamn time)

Eh, screw this noise, I'm off to watch the Thor trailer again.

Tl;dr: there isn't enough alcohol on the planet to make me enjoy this abomination.

It wouldn't matter how badly it fails, it would only affect further Blade Runner movies. You'll still end up with a Treasure of the Sierra Madre remake, directed by Michael Bay.
Personally I've never understood the whole concept of remakes destroying people's memories of the originals, Blade Runner was, is, and always will be awesome.

Nailed it.

This entire franchise has been awful from the start. It's like watching someone wearing a deceased relatives skin.... there's some superficial resemblance to your loved one, but the flesh is rotten, it looks horrific, there's no soul and it has all the wit and intelligence of a particularly stupid sack of hammers.

Fuck this, fuck Michael Bay and god help me, fuck you Anthony Hopkins for sullying your god name in association with this shit.

When the hell did this turn into a mixture of Highlander, King Arthur, and some fucked up version of the Transformers of my past?

Really, there can be only one? Why not just call the enemy bad robot the Kurgan?

Plus, and I'm sorry for saying it, but C'mon Anthony Hopkins, have some pride. You played Hannibal Lecter, don't sell out and become like Sean Connery in Highlander 2.

The only good point of this movie is that it is the last to be done by Michael Bay.

yeah, that was terrible.

Needed more spinning panning camera, more shots focussing on the sweaty women and more bayhem in general.

Bay may be an ass, but he does have a style. It's a crap style, but it's a style.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Michael-Bay-What-is-Bayhem

WONDER WOMAN (Michael Bay Style) has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

Michael Bay - What is Bayhem? has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Michael Bay will hit his peak when he makes a film composed completely of single frame cuts. When they're selling buckets of Ritalin in the lobby, instead of popcorn, you'll know he's achieved his magnum opus.

I dunno. I mean, it looks like it's better than the first one because at least it's picking the cartoon version of TMNT and sticking with it, but it still has that Michael Bay 'style' where they tell the CGI team to just go fucking nuts and to hell with composition or editing, shot to shot cohesion and basically realism and believability in general. Put tons of shiny CGI shit on the screen moving around really fast and call it action.

So... the 7-12 year old male demographic will probably like it. I guess that's okay. That's who the cartoon appealed to.

Seriously though, Battleship seems to me to be the result of a "Hey Pete, betcha can't make a Michael Bay movie!" sort of challenge.

P.S. I couldn't believe it took so long to occur to me, but my least favorite sift is definitely this one:

Michael Bay's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Trailer

Michael Bay just climaxed.