is there such a thing as bad art?
That is, if it's bad, does it count as art?
If so, doesn't that render the label "art" as practically useless?
I'll risk a definition of "art" as "anything created for nonfunctional purposes." By that definition (and I won't say it's definitive), anything that's intended to be nonfunctional and (unintentionally) poorly executed counts as "bad art."
Because Peter Cullen did the voice of Prime for both.
I didn't know that...which says something about how different my ears are now than they were then...or the resonance has taken on epic proportions in my memory.
Not that I didn't like the voice in the film, it just didn't make me all wibbly like it used to.
I'm just old and crusty I guess.
I tend to think of most of those Michael Bay movies (as listed by P-C) as Bruckheimer movies. And, the ones I've seen, I liked fine. Except
Transformers.
Transformers
was just not spectacular enough, it did not wow me like I expected to be wowed.
I think I thought Armageddon was fine.
3 words: Animal. Cracker. Scene.
I really liked THE ROCK when it came out, but haven't seen it in years, and I suspect it would be retroactively tainted by SMARMAGEDDON among other items in Bay's "oeuvre".
It was a Nicholas Cage movie in which Anthony Clark portrayed a character so stereotypically gay (in a mocking, disparaging manner) that he made Jack McFarlan look like Ennis Del Mar. You can imagine how thrilled I was while watching it.
3 words: Animal. Cracker. Scene.
Two more words: Space. Dementia.
3 words: Animal. Cracker. Scene.
I am now earwormed with "Hooray for Captain Spalding!"
I am now earwormed with "Hooray for Captain Spalding!"
Isn't that a good? Certainly infinitely better than remembering that scene in ARMAGEDDON.
Two more words: Space. Dementia.
Now I want to hear Steve Buscemi doing Ren's ice-cream bar soliliquy.