Anyone ever worked on a set with Michael Bay before?

[Sean Yu]

I hear the guy does 70-100 setups per shooting day. That is way more than the average. Has anyone ever worked on a set with him? How exactly does he get so many shots done so quickly, considering the fancy camerawork and well lit shots he has. Does he rely heavily on 2nd Unit, use more cameras, bust people's butts more? If someone's worked on a film crew with him before, I was wondering if they could share their experiences, and discuss how he gets so many setups done, and how he conducts himself on set.

[James T Mather]

Lots of pre rig lighting - multiple cameras, multiple crews, lots of screaming.

[Chris Parker]

oh great. it's always so fun to work with a screamer....

[James T Mather]

This is of course here-say - but whoever told a bar story about a director who was a nice guy, wrapped on time and was polite to the crew. Bottom Line: Bad guys make better copy.

[Nick Gardner]

Bottom Line: Bad guys make better copy.

Thats just bull shit. There are plenty of talented directors that have experiance, that are nice to be around on set, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Ridley Scott,etc.

The screamers are usually insecure, and just plain ass holes. And also, they do have 9 cameras on the truck every day, but they don't have crews to run them (all the time). Plus if they were doing 100 set ups a day, how come it takes them 6 monthes to shoot a picture?

Nick

[Sean Yu]

6 months? Most of Bay's films have about 90 days of shooting in their schedules. Pearl Harbor was shot in less than 100 days. The Island and Transformers each had about 80 something. They do a lot of setups, and get lots of footage down. In post, there's usually around 1 million feet of film to edit from. Talk about having editing choices to work with.

[Noah Kadner]

The thing that's interesting is he has most of the same crew on every movie so he must be doing something right. I interviewed him for Transformers and he was actually damn cool on the phone. Yes, he drives a crew hard but also he doesn't sit in his trailer and wait for things to happen like a lot of big shot directors. He doesn't wait at all. He's always on his feet and pushes the crew to get shots most other directors couldn't even conceive of, often operating his own camera to get them.

If that means stepping on some toes so be it. His crews are getting very-well paid, no one's forcing them to work on a Michael Bay film and he gets blockbuster results. And last time I checked there was no director made famous because he was the most polite and gentle with his crew. It's war, etc etc. :red_bandana:

-Noah

[Peter Majtan]

PJ could be an exception...

[Fredrik Callinggard]

oh great. it's always so fun to work with a screamer....

Well he directs with a megafon :biggrin:


fredrik

[James T Mather]

Thats just bull shit. There are plenty of talented directors that have experiance, that are nice to be around on set, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Ridley Scott,etc



Read my post again before you leap in ranting - I didn't say they were better directors - I said they made better copy.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Ridley Scott,etc.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA the stories I've heard. BUT! Tony Scott is to be really nice, but completely mad.

(Ridley is no screamer he let's other people do it for him)

Fredrik

[Matthew Rogers]

Thats just bull shit. There are plenty of talented directors that have experiance, that are nice to be around on set, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Ridley Scott,etc.

The screamers are usually insecure, and just plain ass holes. And also, they do have 9 cameras on the truck every day, but they don't have crews to run them (all the time). Plus if they were doing 100 set ups a day, how come it takes them 6 monthes to shoot a picture?

Hun? I think what JTM was saying that you will often see/hear more news about "interesting" director's rants then you will see about Eastwood being nice to his cast/crew.

Matthew

[Chris Parker]

i've heard plenty of stories about nice directors, and assholes.

one DOP comes to mind....Dean Cundy. I have heard about 100 stories about what a great guy he is. told about 10 of those myself.

but you're right, horror stories make better print. think james cameron.....

but an asshole is an asshole. and i personally don't give a shit if they are a big time director.

[ayarbro]

"The thing that's interesting is he has most of the same crew on every movie so he must be doing something right.

If that means stepping on some toes so be it."

I think all his guys like to work, and don't mind getting greater than scale wages.
Like it or don't, we all turn into wage whores in this industry after the magic wears off. Especially if we're not forwarding our dream, and if we have kids and a house.

[Tom Lowe]

If you don't like him, walk off the set and give him the finger. It's that simple.

Styles vary so much between directors. Wasn't John Ford sort of a tyrant? Even guys like Kurosawa could get seriously fired up from time to time. Being a director is very similiar to being a field-grade military officer, IMO.

[Florian Stadler]

I don't know about his thematic and script choices so much but as far as craft goes, Michael Bay is a hell of a director. He knows his blocking, lighting, lenses, color, choosing the right locations to allow for lighting, and knows how to create visual impact. He wasn't the biggest commercials/music video director of the 90's for no reason. Now if we were to learn to pick the right material and the Zen Art of restraint....

[Nick Gardner]

Yeah OK, miss read the line "copy" for "content".

And 100 shoot days = 20 5 day weeks, = 5 months with no down time, and if you throw in test days, 2nd unit, pick ups, VFX, I think you can get to 6 months pretty easy ;-)

Didn't mean to offend any Michael Bay fanatics.

Nick

Nick

[David Mullen ASC]

It goes beyond pushing people to do their best when a director does things like torment women on the set for being overweight or taunting people to the point of crying just because they can. I don't see the point in that level of adolescent behavior. It doesn't make the shots more "cool" -- it just makes certain people more miserable on the set.

Some people put up with directors like that out of a sense of machoism -- "I can take anything" -- but it really is an abuse of the power that a director has if it's not related to making a better movie.

I've never found screaming to make someone into a better focus puller, or a better dolly grip, or a better actor. Either I hired someone who can do the job or I didn't, but screaming at them won't transform them into someone more talented or more competent.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

"I've never found screaming to make someone into a better focus puller, or a better dolly grip, or a better actor. Either I hired someone who can do the job or I didn't, but screaming at them won't transform them into someone more talented or more competent."

Hear,hear!

[Priyesh P.]

People told me that I`m way too nice on the set, but until now I`ve never had issues with my way and everybody came back with new projects. I hate screaming and met a director on his "set" once who literally screamed all the time (he even told me that I`ve to be more aggressive during my shoots) - that only made it clearer for me to keep a nice and cooperative athmosphere in the team.

About Michael Bay, it`s definately a sign of discipline to make so many setups a day - but on the other hand his movies are third class in terms of creative and inventive filmmaking which don`t need all that much preparations in terms of storytelling, content and so on - I don`t like any of his cheap and shallow flicks.

[James T Mather]

"I've never found screaming to make someone into a better focus puller, or a better dolly grip, or a better actor.



Oh Yeah? :wink:

http://blog.cheesefingers.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/pacino.jpg

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Hahahahaaaaaa

[KETCH ROSSi]

Ever since 89 I have been in so many sets that I can't even remember them all what I do remember however, was that in several of them the screaming was so bad that they were always people crying on the set, (not just females).

I did fallen in Love with the art of Directing more then I had imagine, but I knew that when come the day that I would direct, it would never get to those screaming contests.

I have deep respect for people and what they do, at the arts are hard in off without some one screaming in your hears, and umiliating you in front of the rest of the crew.

I recently had the pleasure to get my Directorial Debut, and yes it was likely the smallest crew you had ever seen on a set, ( me and Blair) but talking and to your crew and talent is so much better then screaming, and at the end of the day you do still walk out of the set with friends, and leaving a happy crew and talent with a Job well done.


I might had only my first shot at Directing with "GARBO" , and just a 7 minutes trailer teaser, but I did however maintain a position as Director of operation of some of the largest Restaurant and Clubs, as well as been a Chef in large kitchens, never screamed at any one, and always got the absolute best out of every one.

"DON'T SCREAM AT PEOPLE, NON EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FAR AWAY AND CAN'T HEAR YOU, JUST USE THE CELL PHONE INSTEAD"


ciao

[James T Mather]

Well, I guess my question can be reversed and asked this way. Why are other crews in Hollywood so slow? I was on set for this short film, Grandma, directed by Natalie Portman and Adam Kimmel as DP (for the upcoming New York, I Love You movie). I just remember them taking such a long time to set up. Natalie didn't exactly help. I remember her just sitting on the side, talking on the cell, waiting for Adam to set it up. It seemed like she did almost nothing, camera-wise. Not exactly what I like a director to do/have.

I'm not sure if it's even possible, but I bet you the crew would work way faster if you paid them per shot or per setup, instead of per day.

It sounds to me like you are pretty new to this having quoted one short as your experience before suggesting that people work like they are in a concentration camp - Firstly 70-100 setups a day is impossible on a single camera shoot where any degree of finesse in terms of coverage, blocking or lighting is involved. Typically on a 12 hour you can expect up to 30 standard setups if the lighting is quick and the director has been clear about his intentions. This will slow considerably for nightshoots (lighting dependent) or interiors that are not studio rigged (Crane, Steadicam, Macro and elaborate Dolly shots also notwithstanding). As a workflow - typically the director and cameraman discuss a shot and the director waits while lighting occurs, props are reset (if required), tracks etc are set up. If, as a director, you feel like helping you could consider what shots you could get from this camera position/lighting setup and save coming back to this position later. Or maybe you're suggesting Natalie should have lifted the dolly?

[StephenMurphy]

I know a Focus Puller who worked on several Michael Bay Films - according to them his screaming is all bark and no bite, and although he does push his crew and get more setups then most he doesnt get 70-100 set ups a day every day; it all depends on what he's shooting and where he's shooting. Listen to what JTM said - he is very wise.

[Sean]

I related to David Mullen's post--about screaming really having no benefit. I do note that a lot of successful directors are tyrants, but have also worked with producers who screamed at writers, and I firmly believe it did nothing to get better results. In fact, although the producer in question wasn't screaming at me, I felt much less inspired to do the work--at the very least I was distracted to a degree from the creative tasks at hand. I've heard Scott Rudin is a big screamer. Still...the list of tyrannical directors seems to be long: David O Russel, James Cameron, even Kubrick seemed like a "silent screamer" from interviews I've seen (he could be very cold and critical). Maybe it's just too stressful a job? Or maybe it takes that kind of personality to break out of the pack. And happy working conditions don't seem to be a priority in the film business. It's not like any work place in any other industry. You're just sort of supposed to be happy to be there no matter what the conditions, and there's a feeling that if you can't take the screaming, go get a job at a bank. I find that sorta too bad.

[Tony Lorentzen]

How exactly does he get so many shots done so quickly, considering the fancy camerawork and well lit shots he has.

Because he's awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiHsxQJ9ZOo

[Kenn Michael]

Love that commercial... AWESOME! :)

[Joe Carney]

I've heard that on Clint Eastwoods' sets, if you yell, you get fired.

[Joe G.]

"Because he's awesome:"

He agreed to make claims in a deceptive commercial that does not offer any specifics about this "awesome" speed of connection. No numbers.

This is deceptive advertising at its most putrid.

[Chris Parker]

Being a director is very similiar to being a field-grade military officer, IMO.

Hmmmm. Seems a little different to me. Selling ideas (or Tide, or Budweiser, or your movie, or whatever) is one thing. Having the lives of hundreds of young men in your hands is something else.

That really is the point. Those people who think it is (and should be) like the military make me laugh. Is selling cereal really that important? Is making a film really THAT important? To compare it to war seems ridiculous.

[Sean Yu]

Well, maybe not in terms of whether it's life and death. However, the hierachy or "bureaucracy" in a film crew and the chain of command in military units do have their similarities. In fact, Bay himself, who's worked with actual people in the military for his movies, has talked about how military people respect the structure of a film crew, since it reminds them of their structure. Maybe you can think of things this way: The director of a movie is the equivalent of a CEO in a company. The producers are the board of directors. The DP, production designer, editor, and composer are the vice presidents.

[Darren Orange]

Also to note when you hear setups...that typically means cameras. So 70 setups in a day with 3 cameras is realistic. If they where doing 70 setups with 1 camera, that would be impressive.....

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, the company structure makes more sense. Good analogy.....

Still no need for screaming though, unless the director has a terrible crew. As David said, why scream at a good focus puller? Why scream at a GOOD technician? If he is surrounded by people who are bad at their jobs, or lazy, then sure, some screaming may be needed.

But let's all admit it. There are some screamers who just scream for the sake of screaming....and that is just uncalled for....and completely lame.

[Tom Lowe]

Just FYI, field grade officers (Colonels, Generals, etc) do not scream. In fact, most of them are very cool customers. I wasn't comparing directors to drill sergeants. Drill sergeants are more like 1st ADs. :)

[Sean Yu]

Just curious. On feature films, what's the usual ratio of the amount of raw footage shot and the final cut (for an action, drama, comedy)? I heard that Pearl Harbor had about 300 something hours of raw footage, and the final product was about 3, making the ratio 100:1. Bay talked about having an excess of raw footage to choose from in post. He said he enjoyed having lots of choices.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most of the medium budget movies, it's around 20:1 for something shot on film, more like 30:1 to even 60:1 for stuff shot on digital. For smaller indie movies, it's more like 7:1 to 10:1 for film projects and double or triple that for digital projects.

[Sean Yu]

Wow, so I guess 100:1 is way more than the average feature shot on film. Then again, a Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer film is no average feature (at least in terms of budget/resources. I'm not really arguing for or against the artistic quality or anything).

No wonder Bay's movies look so good. He's got so much footage to choose from. If you could pick the best shots or pieces of a shot, with a 100:1 ratio, I would imagine something would turn out looking great. Although, I'm pretty sure Bay has a natural talent at making shots look good regardless with his background in the highly visual field of high-end commercial directing. Not to mention, he works with the one of the best, if not the best CGI company in the world (ILM), and some of the best editors, color-correctors, etc.

One of my really good friends who's currently an amateur filmmaker shot a piece with the final product being an hour long. He said he used 17 one-hour mini DV tapes. I thought that was a pretty impressive amount of raw footage he got down.

[M Most]

Wow, so I guess 100:1 is way more than the average feature shot on film. Then again, a Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer film is no average feature (at least in terms of budget/resources. I'm not really arguing for or against the artistic quality or anything).

Action pictures usually shoot at a much higher ratio, in part due to the amount of overcranking used. A shot done at, say, 72fps is using 3 times the amount of film as one done at 24fps. This adds up very quickly. Action pictures also utilize a lot more coverage for stunt work, and require a lot of "pieces" in order to make them work. The shooting ratio for an "average" narrative drama is considerably lower than for an action picture.


One of my really good friends who's currently an amateur filmmaker shot a piece with the final product being an hour long. He said he used 17 one-hour mini DV tapes. I thought that was a pretty impressive amount of raw footage he got down.

One hour television dramas (actually about 43 minutes today) usually expose about 2 hours of film each day of an 8 day shoot, primarily due to the common use of 2 cameras (and partly due to less experienced directors) these days. So you can use that as a guide.

[Sean Yu]

I'd rather have it and not need it than vice versa. If you got the time and money, go for it. Get down as much footage as you can. In all my films back when I was a student, I never said to myself, "Man, I wish I didn't shoot so much. There's too much footage for me to edit and play around with." I have however said to myself on many occasions, "I really wish I had shot that" or "I wish I got this from another angle". In film, what's the worst that could happen if you shot something that ends up not being good-looking or doesn't work for whatever reason, you just don't use it in the editing. All you've wasted is some time and money, and if those two are something you have more than enough of, well...there you go.

Yeah, nothing burns up film faster than shooting raw footage in slow-motion. When I was younger, I would do 64fps excessively on my little Bolex 16mm, and the spool would run out way before I wanted it to. I remember the first ever "film" I made when I was a kid, I had a ratio of about 4:1 or 3:1 where I used a lot of slow-motion and had a $100 budget, all of which I used for the 3 packs of film ($25 a piece) and $20 to my friend for gas money, since I felt bad I was burning up fuel in his car for my little movie.