Jared. Jared. Jared. How are you wrong? Let me count the ways.

First, since we’re talking about how “great” Michael Bay is, I think it would be prudent to actually define the word great. Dictonary.com defines great (as it relates to people) as “of extraordinary powers; having unusual merit; very admirable.” Let’s see if Mr. Bay can measure up.

So, we go point-by-point. The first argument raised deals with box office receipts. The question is, though, do box office receipts denote a “good” movie? How many of us think The Game Plan was a good movie (or would have been a good movie if we had watched it)? It did make over $90 million, and, in time, it could prove to be the kick start to Dwanye “The Rock” Johnson’s career. Does that mean that Andy Fickman is a great director? Or, is The Game Plan not big enough? How about the Spider-Man trilogy? They’ve grossed almost $2.5 billion dollars world-wide. And, since I’ve already asked you, I know that you don’t think any of the three movies were great. It goes the other way too. One of the best action films I have ever seen – Boondock Saints – made a grand total of $30,471 in box office receipts. However, these are just examples of why total box office revenue is not necessarily a good indicator of directorial greatness.

I am not certain if public notoriety is necessarily a good indicator of greatness either. Horrible movies stay in the public consciousness just as well, if not better than many acclaimed ones. Also, public fame/infamy falls into the same situation as box office receipts. The Spider-Man example applies in this case as well. In fact, the Spider-Man trilogy is an excellent parallel to the “Michael Bay condition” – high gross revenue, plenty of acclaim, and overall crappy movies.

For his third point, once again, Jared bases his arguments on the opinions of others instead of the conviction of his own beliefs. If we want to talk about critiques and reviews, the pendulum swings both ways. Rottentomatoes.com’s top critics gave The Rock a 54% – all reviews did slightly better with 62%. Not exactly stellar and The Rock is arguably Bay’s best movie. If truth be told, looking at rottentomatoes.com, Michael Bay movies average a whopping 35%. Not sure what your idea of greatness is, but 35% is not mine. Metacritic.com’s picture isn’t much rosier. However, this is neither here nor there. These last three points are not meant to convince someone of Michael Bay’s incompetence, they are meant to show that Jared’s reasoning for worshiping Mr. Bay is mired in the questionable opinion of others. I understand the reasoning behind stating these “facts,” I just call into question their validity and credibility.

On to point four. Being able to afford good talent does not mean you are a good director. Actors are just like anybody else, if you pay them enough, they are going to work with you. Added to this is the fact that there are very few actors/actresses – including all the ones you listed – who have unerringly chosen “great” movies throughout their career. Going back to point one, we have already discussed how bad movies can still make a lot of money. Few actors/actress are going to pass up the chance for that kind of pay day. Michael Bay movies – for the most part – make money, suck, but don’t catch much flak for their crappiness. This, for actors and actresses alike, equates to a safe, big pay-day. Also, how hard is it to pick hot actresses? You think we couldn’t pick any guy off the street and have him rattle off 10 hot actresses we all would like to see in a movie?

Finally, after all the crap arguments you were able to squeeze into your post, you come to the two semi-valid ones. First, I agree with you. Michael Bay has some talent in directing commercials. Maybe he should stick with a medium that only requires a 30 second attention span. And now we come to your real argument, which I’ll paraphrase: “Movies are meant to be entertaining. Michael Bay’s movies are entertaining. Sh*t blows up in Michael Bay movies. Michael Bay is great.” Did I capture the essence of your line of reasoning?

My Rebuttal: Movies ARE meant to be entertaining. But that’s not exactly what we are arguing. We are trying to determine whether or not Michael Bay is a great director. You may be able to argue that Michael Bay’s movies are entertaining to you, and to a great many other people, but is that because of him or in spite of him? “Nobody explodes sh*t like Michael Bay…” That is an excellent point. Ask anyone after watching a Michael Bay film and I will put money on the fact that a majority of them will most remember the explosions. But does the ability to explode sh*t on-screen make him great? I argue that that is not the case. Have you ever seen anything in the directing of a Michael Bay film that leads you to believe that you or I or any number of random people couldn’t do as good as or better of a job than he does with any of his movies? Most of the stuff you like about his movies are due to the writing and production, not the directing. He doesn’t have any “extraordinary powers” of directing. His direction definitely doesn’t exhibit “unusual merit.” And, while the ability/opportunity to “blow sh*t up” on-screen may be “admirable,” I do not believe it is grounds for greatness.

So, sorry Jared; you, in fact, did NOT convince me. I appreciate your confidence in my logical capacity and welcome any arguments you may come up with to dissuade me from my current stance – as your original ones were not very…persuasive.