What If: Micheal Bay did a 9/11 movie?

He'd have multiple exterior view points of the towers collapsing... in slo-mo. He also cuts repeatedly to the interior scenes, showing the heroes somehow leaping from collapsing floor to collapsing floor, in a vain attempt to escape.
 
He may have a side plot of navy seals rescuing the President from ground assault. Or one of the F-16 pilots doing something that never happened, like waiting for the order to shoot an airliner down. And the buildings would blow up like Parliament in V for Vendetta. And that third building would get a dramatic explosion filled collapse.
 
He'd have multiple exterior view points of the towers collapsing... in slo-mo. He also cuts repeatedly to the interior scenes, showing the heroes somehow leaping from collapsing floor to collapsing floor, in a vain attempt to escape.

He may have a side plot of navy seals rescuing the President from ground assault. Or one of the F-16 pilots doing something that never happened, like waiting for the order to shoot an airliner down. And the buildings would blow up like Parliament in V for Vendetta. And that third building would get a dramatic explosion filled collapse.

And boobs.
 
one thing about pearl harbor , the plot was completly and utterly insane but the japanese attack was uber cool especially the fleet sinking part if u take the emotions out of it(seriously watch the attack scenes only and suddenly you think its a decent war/action movie) . His main problem seem to be plot/writing issues otherwise he does a decent job on the fundamentals of directing as well as anyone wich is saying alot lol.

maybe in 2021 for the 20th anniversary but not right now for the movie to be honest. And there would be better directors for it .
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It would be filled with explosions, boobs, dick jokes and racial stereotypes.
(though explosions actually fit in this movie, but he'd fuck it up somehow by changing it to nuclear explosions or something).
 
How horrifically Bad and Insulting would it be? :eek:

Or would it somehow by some miracle actually be good? :eek:

Lots of orange tinted or sunset shots, lots of slow motion, lots of fetishisation of technology while depicting it completely unrealistically, lots of swelling music to underscore obvious points.

And explosions. Lots of explosions.
 
one thing about pearl harbor , the plot was completly and utterly insane but the japanese attack was uber cool especially the fleet sinking part if u take the emotions out of it(seriously watch the attack scenes only and suddenly you think its a decent war/action movie) .
.

Interesting, I thought those sequences were terrible parts of a terrible movie - cartoony with too much CGI and ignorance/distortion of how real world aircraft actually fly and fight (and in a couple of cases what actually occurred), even considering the limitations/requirements of the medium. But then I grew up watching classics like "Tora Tora Tora" and "The Battle of Britain" so maybe I'm biased. Both those movies have average/mediocre plot sequences, but the aerial sequences are generally awesome.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the fighter pilot near DC, who has to scramble with the rest of his squadron. This plot line never really goes anywhere or contributes anything, but provides an excuse for lots of shots of fighter planes taking off and doing fancy maneuvers. Said pilot may end up bombing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.


With all aircraft in full afterburner whenever they are on screen :) .
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not :) Accuracy in a Michael Bay movie is oxymoronic.

The point of my post I was trying to laboriously get to was that Bay isn't a bad film maker; he's rather one who falls back onto cliches and imitation, be it of movies he thinks have 'cool shots', or simply hyper-powered reshuffled of the things he thought he did right. When it came to Pearl Harbor, most inaccuracies can be chalked to the 'rule of cool'. He puts things there because it's visually interesting, and because, in the movie his focus was on recreating an experience as opposed to authenticity. It's also worth noting that Pearl Harbor was before 9/11.

Now in Bay's hypothetical 9/11 Movie, unlike Pearl Harbor he has an incentive to be as accurate as he can be whilst still playing in the Rule of Cool. He wants to be as accurate as possible because this movie is his tribute of sorts, and, whilst he may play with some events to fit the desired flow of his movie, it would likely be accurate outside the fictional characters (assuming he goes fictional).

It won't be disaster Porn, and it won't be explosions every eight seconds, and it certainly won't be as inaccurate as Pearl Harbor. For all his faults, Bay isn't that un-self-aware, and I think he could make a decent film. Not a great one, but one that isn't forks awful.
 
Last edited:

Sabot Cat

Banned
The point of my post I was trying to laboriously get to was that Bay isn't a bad film maker; he's rather one who falls back onto cliches and imitation, be it of movies he thinks have 'cool shots', or simply hyper-powered reshuffled of the things he thought he did right. When it came to Pearl Harbor, most inaccuracies can be chalked to the 'rule of cool'. He puts things there because it's visually interesting, and because, in the movie,the his focus was on recreating an experience as opposed to authenticity. It's also worth noting that Pearl Harbor was before 9/11.

Now in Bay's hypothetical 9/11 Movie, unlike Pearl Harbor he has an incentive to be as accurate as he can be whilst still playing in the Rule of Cool. He wants to be as accurate as possible because this movie is his tribute of sorts, and, whilst he may play with some events to fit the desired flow of his movie, it would likely be accurate outside the fictional characters (assuming he goes fictional).

It won't be disaster Porn, and it won't be explosions every eight seconds, and it certainly won't be as inaccurate as Pearl Harbor. For all his faults, Bay isn't that un-self-aware, and I think he could make a decent film. Not a great one, but one that isn't forks awful.

I agree with this assessment.
 
The point of my post I was trying to laboriously get to was that Bay isn't a bad film maker; he's rather one who falls back onto cliches and imitation, be it of movies he thinks have 'cool shots', or simply hyper-powered reshuffled of the things he thought he did right. When it came to Pearl Harbor, most inaccuracies can be chalked to the 'rule of cool'. He puts things there because it's visually interesting, and because, in the movie,the his focus was on recreating an experience as opposed to authenticity. It's also worth noting that Pearl Harbor was before 9/11.

Now in Bay's hypothetical 9/11 Movie, unlike Pearl Harbor he has an incentive to be as accurate as he can be whilst still playing in the Rule of Cool. He wants to be as accurate as possible because this movie is his tribute of sorts, and, whilst he may play with some events to fit the desired flow of his movie, it would likely be accurate outside the fictional characters (assuming he goes fictional).

It won't be disaster Porn, and it won't be explosions every eight seconds, and it certainly won't be as inaccurate as Pearl Harbor. For all his faults, Bay isn't that un-self-aware, and I think he could make a decent film. Not a great one, but one that isn't forks awful.


Fair enough, but also worth noting that Bay stated in interviews that Pearl Harbour was going to be "accurate" as a depiction of historical events :)
 
Top