James Cameron vs Michael Bay

Cameron for the MEGAstomp

lol

James Cameron has made progressive, original and insightful contributions the world of film....

Michael Bay made "Pain and Gain"

-___-

hey, I'm sure a few people prefer Bay

No one deserves to be stomped this hard... What's next? Post-Sixth Sense M. Night v. Chris Nolan?

@silent_bomber: My bad... I forgot that movie came after.

Some people like Signs as well, but I thought the formula was getting stale by then, the twist endings just started feeling contrived.

His movies were pretty much a downward slope, with each being worse than the last.

Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens. 'nuff said.

Mega curbstomp in favor of Cameron imo. I have yet to see a Michael Bay movie I have even liked or thought was altogether a movie people will still be watching 20 years from now. Cameron already has directed a few movies that have stood the test of time and are considered classics. A better matchup would have been Cameron/Scott.

WTF is with all the polls being off lately?

Wasn't even close.

Cameron hands down.

I found one of Bay's early projects when he was in high school.

Cameron Godstomps. Seen her with a little something in his hand that Bay will never experience

id put aliens 2 as a cameron most notable work

No shame in Aliens being his most notable movie. That is one of the greatest action flicks of all time.

Cameron by a long shot. Now if we are talking Cameron vs. Spielberg, that would be much harder choice for me to make.

@greatcaesarsghost said:

WTF is with all the polls being off lately?

I know i complaint of one time that it got 154 %.

This glitch has being here like since 3 months ago.

Bay has a positive impact in movies, the main problem, Bay has to be as Bay as he can.

Even James Cameron said he based Avatar action on Bayhem, just without Bay need to be Bay.

If Bay stop being as Bay he can, he could make great action movies.

@fil123: There was no aliens 2. It went alien, aliens then alien 3.

I'm not the world's biggest Cameron fan but wow that's an easy choice.

The Rock and The Island are quite watchable, that's everything good about Bay I can think of.

i know, is just a habit. its still a sequel

The Rock was my favorite MB movie personally.

What about the Bad Boy films? Also Pain and Gain happened almost exactly how Bay made it it in life. The movie wasn't stupid, just the dudes whom it was about.

Still Cameron I guess. But if he made that Spider-Man movie he had planned you would all have changed you're votes.

LOL

Only thing I liked from Bay was The Rock.

Why so much hate for Michael Bay?

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/battles-7/blue-marvel-monica-rambeu-vs-wonder-woman-cheetah-1614171/#1

@juliedc: I really dont get the amount of love Spielberg gets. Yes he has made some truly great films but it just gets on my nerves that 60% of his films are just "aliens did it".

Because he's awful. The only movie that Bay has made that is even close to good is The Rock. His other movies are just explosion-fests with little to no concern for dialogue or plot. Meanwhile, James Cameron has directed the two highest grossing movies of all time (not accounting inflation) as well as Aliens, Terminator, etc. Cameron is in Speilberg class. Bay is in Joel Schummacher class.

@g_leno: I tend to agree. I think nearly everything he's done or produced since 1990 has been crap. He's one of the greats but I put a lot of directors ahead of him.

@g_leno: Spielberg makes movies that appeal to my taste in movies which is a mix of adventure fun like Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones and historical drama like Lincoln, Schindler's List etc. Its also why I like James Cameron because of fun movies like Terminator 2 and historical drama like Titanic. I like directors who can do different genres.

Aliens and Terminator 2 alone justify Cameron's career as a director and make him better than Bay.

@humanrocket: Yeah, James made the amazing inconceivable films like Aliens, Terminator 2, True Lies. But he also made Avatar...that's unforgivable.

Vote goes to Bay.

Style over substance, that is pretty much how Tim Burton, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino got big to.

From that list only Tarantino show he had more substance that the others.

Funny that style over substance got from this to video games and a bunch of other things.

Joel Schumacher has made movies were the substance and the style work together pretty damn well, sadly people will always remember the Batman movies he made, more that his more serious and superior work, also it was WB fault and Tim Burton could had control WB as he was an executive in the movie, sadly people will blame just one man.

Style over substance is one of the reason movies today pretty much suck, most of popular directors follow this and the ones that do have substance are called overrated and gets tons of hate of people that dont get there was a world where style wasnt the king.

@deathpoolthet1000: From my perspective style over substance really began in the late 80's and early 90's when movies like Jurassic Park and T2 which had huge budgets for special effects and cgi also took in huge amounts of money. Suddenly, making these huge blockbusters became Hollywood's new obsession and the idea that if you have enough special effects the movie will make money seemed to be the rule they were following. So I think both Spielberg and also Cameron both played a part in that whole way of making movies. Bay just added huge amounts of explosions to the formula. Burton I would say has his own style which is sort of outside of that whole genre of movie making. He just likes to make weird movies with lots of puppet like characters or humans dressed as puppets.

Spielborg or Scott. I honestly consider these two as mediocre.

I don't even like James Cameron's work and I had to vote him as well.

James Cameron mediocre?

Cameron.

@spambot: The Blockbuster era started when Jaws and Star Wars killed new Hollywood, it wasnt the blockbuster fault, also the whole lets blame CGI and Special Effects its a wrong argument, movies got bad because the system notice it could make money with bad movies.

Star Wars and Terminator had style working for the substance, then a generation of directors came that got into a crazy love for style, this got worst with time, since they became the norm.

Bay show in Pain and Gain he can do his style with smaller budgets, also Bayhem starts in movies with Bad Boy, which it wasnt a huge budget movie.

Tony Scott its the best example of style frenzy, his later films show an amazing amount of style.

Tim Burton based his style in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, you cant notice Edward looks exactly like Cesare and Oswald looks exactly as Dr. Caligari, the whole look in his films its trying to be like this movie exactly.

Hollywood notice they could make money with terrible movies later, but the whole style over substance isnt the only reason why movies are getting terrible.

@ganon15 said:

@penderor said:

Spielborg or Scott. I honestly consider these two as mediocre.

James Cameron mediocre?

I actually find most of his film past T2 to be pretty boring.

@deathpoolthet1000: I'm aware that the blockbuster type movies started in the late 70's but there were a few key differences between those and the ones that started coming out a dime a dozen in the late 80's/early 90's. One being the first ones were made on much smaller budgets and were mainly story driven as you mentioned while the ones in the ilk of T2(which was pretty good overall but it opened the door for much worse) and Jurassic Park which were mainly just about throwing money at cgi and special effects and hoping the public would eat it up which they did at first and which made them think they had a new way to print money.