Michael Bay

[Ezra]

American director, most well known (I assume) for directing the crap film, Pearl Harbor. A master when it comes to action sequences (best shown in, yes, Pearl Harbor).

Here are the only interviews I could find (I didn't put that much effort in). They're both on Transformers.





ILE in my opinion. Notice the admiration from Spielberg, potentially his identical. He loves big, bastard set pieces that blow the audience away, which suggests Fe HA, and his Ne I think comes through in the first interview when he's talking about how shit one of the transformers would look if he wasn't there to make it look better.

[misutii]

I think he's LSE (ESTj). I've watched a number of his movies and never really liked them, in fact I found transformers horribly frustrating and obnoxious and the character development lame if not non-existent... but this was my subjective opinion - my ISFj and ENTj friend actually enjoyed the movie, as did my ESFj sister. Now we can all agree that it wasn't a 'smart' movie but I'm not being a snob here as there's dumb movies that I actually do enjoy - what I'm getting at is that whatever the main socionic functions that influenced the creation of this and his other movies were, they weren't ones I find attractive.

His movies aren't innovative/experimental/eccentric in any way, they instead play upon convention and use the latest in technology to create loud explosions followed by loud music rinse repeat rinse repeat... it's a safe and sound formula that doesn't take risks

I'm trying to think of a better way to describe why I think he's Te/Si but my brain's convuluted at the moment so I'll stop here for now.

[Park]

My first impression based mainly on VI was ENFj but I think ENTp makes much more sense.

[Ezra]

I think he's LSE (ESTj). I've watched a number of his movies and never really liked them, in fact I found transformers horribly frustrating and obnoxious and the character development lame if not non-existent... but this was my subjective opinion - my ISFj and ENTj friend actually enjoyed the movie, as did my ESFj sister. Now we can all agree that it wasn't a 'smart' movie but I'm not being a snob here as there's dumb movies that I actually do enjoy - what I'm getting at is that whatever the main socionic functions that influenced the creation of this and his other movies were, they weren't ones I find attractive.

His movies aren't innovative/experimental/eccentric in any way, they instead play upon convention and use the latest in technology to create loud explosions followed by loud music rinse repeat rinse repeat... it's a safe and sound formula that doesn't take risks

I'm trying to think of a better way to describe why I think he's Te/Si but my brain's convuluted at the moment so I'll stop here for now.

FTR, my IEE best friend enjoyed Transformers, despite his initial doubts about it, and he's the ultimate film snob. He needs innovation, experimentation and eccentricity, and this defied all of that.

Anyway, why do you think he's LSE? I see more evidence for Fe in both his films and his expressions.

My first impression based mainly on VI was ENFj but I think ENTp makes much more sense.

I could see arguments for both, but I'm far more inclined to think he is ILE.

[misutii]

FTR, my IEE best friend enjoyed Transformers, despite his initial doubts about it, and he's the ultimate film snob. He needs innovation, experimentation and eccentricity, and this defied all of that.

Anyway, why do you think he's LSE? I see more evidence for Fe in both his films and his expressions.

That your IEE best friend enjoyed transformers would indicate that he responded well to whatever information element was prevalent right? Si and Te should be the functions he responds best to.

I don't see where the Fe is that you're seeing... there was like zero sentimentality in this film, it struck no emotional chords

Shia LaBouf's (sp?) character in transformers was probably based on an LSE... as was pretty much every other male character in the movie. The female lead was based on a stereotypically dumb female stereotype. The film was the epitome of mainstream. Michael Bay himself looks like a sterotypical all-american high school football player.

The jokes in his films come off as lame to me but I can see how their purpose is to break tension between characters but I don't value Si so find them annoying - I want MORE tension when I'm watching movies, I want to feel uncomfortable.

There's no abstract concepts to speak of in the movie, it's as concrete as well... a block of concrete. Lots of the dialogue is of the overused military jargon kind i.e. (shifts to military airplane scene) Pilot: "enemy in sight, waiting for command to fire"... etc. In my opinion it's just boring and the scenes are providing me with information that I just don't care about - this might be him providing Te and me dismissing it...

All that being said I can't claim to have much experience typing movie directors. I purposely have made my comments towards the movie as honest as possible as I think my reaction to the movie was biased by my preferred functions... like I didn't dislike it for "not being good enough for me" but because I was honestly bored... now consider that I actually enjoyed a movie that critics would agree was even worse (Aeon Flux lol I know it was dumb but I found it fun -though charlize theoron may have had something to do with it...)

[Ezra]

I don't see where the Fe is that you're seeing... there was like zero sentimentality in this film, it struck no emotional chords

Alright, maybe not in that film, but have you seen Pearl Harbor? The romanticism in that was outrageous. I don't think he's Fe ego; I think he's Fe valuing. I think he has strong vision, otherwise he'd never have been able to pull off a film like Pearl Harbor; I doubt any LSE would with that kind of artistic flair. There was a thread a while ago about film directors and Ne; basically film directors essentially need Ne to be good directors. Don't ask why, because I don't know.

The jokes in his films come off as lame to me but I can see how their purpose is to break tension between characters but I don't value Si so find them annoying - I want MORE tension when I'm watching movies, I want to feel uncomfortable.

Again, Si valuing, not Si ego.

There's no abstract concepts to speak of in the movie, it's as concrete as well... a block of concrete. Lots of the dialogue is of the overused military jargon kind i.e. (shifts to military airplane scene) Pilot: "enemy in sight, waiting for command to fire"... etc. In my opinion it's just boring and the scenes are providing me with information that I just don't care about - this might be him providing Te and me dismissing it...

I don't think you can argue that. I mean, were there any abstract concepts in Saving Private Ryan, directed by ILE Spielberg?

[JRiddy]

I definitely can see the ILE. He can barely keep from moving his hands as an almost unconscious demonstration of what he's thinking. This appears to be a common ILE trait. He also has that kind of rambling conversational style of an ILE, almost as though he's talking about things as much so that he can figure them out as to explain them to others. (Leading often manifests itself in this "learn by discussion" way.)

And even though I really hate his films, you can never knock him for not having a really strong idea of what he wants to do. He uses technology to create a sense of the epic, though he's no where near the master Spielberg is at this. But like Spielberg movies, his movies almost always focus on some guy getting caught up in events way too big for him, but who always finds a way to contribute.

[misutii]

Alright, maybe not in that film, but have you seen Pearl Harbor? The romanticism in that was outrageous. I don't think he's Fe ego; I think he's Fe valuing. I think he has strong vision, otherwise he'd never have been able to pull off a film like Pearl Harbor; I doubt any LSE would with that kind of artistic flair. There was a thread a while ago about film directors and Ne; basically film directors essentially need Ne to be good directors. Don't ask why, because I don't know.



I don't think you can argue that. I mean, were there any abstract concepts in Saving Private Ryan, directed by ILE Spielberg?

"Pearl Harbour" was patriotic garbage and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a respectable critic that rates Michael Bay as a 'good director'. The romanticism in Pearl Harbour is not the product of the director's creative and imaginative insight but rather is based largely on conventional and socially acceptable cliches - as is the film as a whole. The film was made with the cooperation of the US army, meaning that the US army let the crew use their equipment and other shit and in return it was required that the film cut any sequences judged harmful to the army's PR (image). Contrast this to a film like "Platoon" or "Apocalypse Now" - examples of films that didn't receive the army's cooperation or endorsement.

Pearl Harbour and Transformers have a lot in common. The draw of both is the special effects and technology used to make them "blockbuster" films, in other words they overwhelm the audience's senses with explosions and loud music so that the audience cannot take their eyes off the screen - this same method is increasingly being used in commercials. The primary goal of these films is not to get across a message or to achieve artistic integrity, the goal is to make money.

In regards to abstract concepts - I maintain my position, Saving Private Ryan differs from "Pearl Harbour" and "Transformers" in that it maintains its intellectual integrity (is willing to offend the audience for the sake of portraying the truth). A clearer example of Spielberg's ability to deal with abstractions would be "Minority Report" , "Munich" works as well. Michael Bay simply lacks the intuitive depth of an ILE.

[JRiddy]

"Pearl Harbour" was patriotic garbage and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a respectable critic that rates Michael Bay as a 'good director'. The romanticism in Pearl Harbour is not the product of the director's creative and imaginative insight but rather is based largely on conventional and socially acceptable cliches - as is the film as a whole. The film was made with the cooperation of the US army, meaning that the US army let the crew use their equipment and other shit and in return it was required that the film cut any sequences judged harmful to the army's PR (image). Contrast this to a film like "Platoon" or "Apocalypse Now" - examples of films that didn't receive the army's cooperation or endorsement.

Pearl Harbour and Transformers have a lot in common. The draw of both is the special effects and technology used to make them "blockbuster" films, in other words they overwhelm the audience's senses with explosions and loud music so that the audience cannot take their eyes off the screen - this same method is increasingly being used in commercials. The primary goal of these films is not to get across a message or to achieve artistic integrity, the goal is to make money.

In regards to abstract concepts - I maintain my position, Saving Private Ryan differs from "Pearl Harbour" and "Transformers" in that it maintains its intellectual integrity (is willing to offend the audience for the sake of portraying the truth). A clearer example of Spielberg's ability to deal with abstractions would be "Minority Report" , "Munich" works as well. Michael Bay simply lacks the intuitive depth of an ILE.

There is a lack of "insight" in Bay's movies. He's not a good director; very few people will argue that he is. But I don't see a lack of so much as a lack of . Spielberg (ILE) and Kubrick (LII) movies always break things down, and present a coherent view of the "idea" or "main point" of the movie. Michael Bay seems to have no interest in such things, and is hostile or dismissive to those kind of criticisms. This makes me think in the Super-Ego.

But Bay doesn't really seem to be just in it for the money. On the contrary, he seems to make movies primarily to serve as exciting, enjoyable entertainment. But there's no interest in personal development either, which is what you might expect from an IEE's movies. So I'm kinda left guessing here. I'll keep looking.

[misutii]

There is a lack of "insight" in Bay's movies. He's not a good director; very few people will argue that he is. But I don't see a lack of so much as a lack of . Spielberg (ILE) and Kubrick (LII) movies always break things down, and present a coherent view of the "idea" or "main point" of the movie. Michael Bay seems to have no interest in such things, and is hostile or dismissive to those kind of criticisms. This makes me think in the Super-Ego.

That makes sense. Also I'd add that in a movie like Pearl Harbour the fact that he'd place the value of "enjoyable entertainment" over that of the historical facts is indicative (to a degree) of Si > Ni. Not only that but he eliminated the realism of war by avoiding gory scenes and making the movie a "family friendly" PG-13 vs. R.

[JRiddy]

So I popped in The Rock and Pearl Harbor and skipped through them. (I've seen them before, and no, I don't own them, they're my roommate's. Shut up. ) What stood out to me, above all else, is the incredible attention to visual detail, almost to the exclusion of all else. In that sense, his movies are impressive. All the details are meant to paint the picture of something huge. He almost completely ignores any kind of coherent character development, and deals bluntly and curtly with interpersonal relationships, treating them very one-dimensionally.

I've rethought the PoLR thing, and I actually think he has thought this stuff out much more than I would have thought. His movies actually make sense within their own world, and its self-coherence, rather than real-world correlation that is important to . With a likely unvalued , and valued , , and , ILE sounds pretty good to me.

[Ezra]

"Pearl Harbour" was patriotic garbage and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a respectable critic that rates Michael Bay as a 'good director'. The romanticism in Pearl Harbour is not the product of the director's creative and imaginative insight but rather is based largely on conventional and socially acceptable cliches - as is the film as a whole. The film was made with the cooperation of the US army, meaning that the US army let the crew use their equipment and other shit and in return it was required that the film cut any sequences judged harmful to the army's PR (image). Contrast this to a film like "Platoon" or "Apocalypse Now" - examples of films that didn't receive the army's cooperation or endorsement.

This is good; I agree with it all. Platoon is a fantastic film, Apocalypse Now is my favourite. They don't even make the effort to make America look good; quite frankly, Stone and Coppola respectively couldn't give a shit about this. Their Ni is more interesting to them.

Pearl Harbour and Transformers have a lot in common. The draw of both is the special effects and technology used to make them "blockbuster" films, in other words they overwhelm the audience's senses with explosions and loud music so that the audience cannot take their eyes off the screen - this same method is increasingly being used in commercials. The primary goal of these films is not to get across a message or to achieve artistic integrity, the goal is to make money.

No, I disagree with the last bit; I think he genuinely wants people to enjoy his films, and he enjyos making them, regardless of how shite they are.

In regards to abstract concepts - I maintain my position, Saving Private Ryan differs from "Pearl Harbour" and "Transformers" in that it maintains its intellectual integrity (is willing to offend the audience for the sake of portraying the truth). A clearer example of Spielberg's ability to deal with abstractions would be "Minority Report" , "Munich" works as well. Michael Bay simply lacks the intuitive depth of an ILE.

Maybe. I must admit, I find it difficult to come up with something against this.

So I popped in The Rock and Pearl Harbor and skipped through them. (I've seen them before, and no, I don't own them, they're my roommate's. Shut up. ) What stood out to me, above all else, is the incredible attention to visual detail, almost to the exclusion of all else. In that sense, his movies are impressive. All the details are meant to paint the picture of something huge. He almost completely ignores any kind of coherent character development, and deals bluntly and curtly with interpersonal relationships, treating them very one-dimensionally.

I've rethought the PoLR thing, and I actually think he has thought this stuff out much more than I would have thought. His movies actually make sense within their own world, and its self-coherence, rather than real-world correlation that is important to . With a likely unvalued , and valued , , and , ILE sounds pretty good to me.

Yep. Good analysis.

[misutii]

No, I disagree with the last bit; I think he genuinely wants people to enjoy his films, and he enjyos making them, regardless of how shite they are.

Yeah now that I think about it I was really in no position to make such judgments and he probably does sincerely enjoy what he does.

[Ezra]

Yeah now that I think about it I was really in no position to make such judgments and he probably does sincerely enjoy what he does.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[JuJu]

FTR, my IEE best friend enjoyed Transformers, despite his initial doubts about it, and he's the ultimate film snob. He needs innovation, experimentation and eccentricity, and this defied all of that.

Anyway, why do you think he's LSE? I see more evidence for Fe in both his films and his expressions.



I could see arguments for both, but I'm far more inclined to think he is ILE.

Michael Bay is an alum of Wesleyan U., the school I attended last year--he came and gave a speech to the film dept... Almost everybody there disliked Transformers--so he def wasn't preaching to the choir... I remember thinking at the time that he was alpha NT--seemed very sure of himself

[Aleksei]

I think ESE is fairly obvious, but I'd be willing to consider LSE, or EIE.

ESE 3w4 sx/sp (ESTJ)

[Sol]

ENFP

[Aleksei]

wtf