Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ML523 t1_j2egn4b wrote

You can say some of his films are overrated, but that doesn’t mean that his films aren’t subjectively considered better by almost everyone.

Also, for all of Avatars faults, they’re still way better movies than the travesty that was every transformers movie but the 1st.

60

Purple-Age-233 t1_j2egr78 wrote

Just because Cameron’s movies aren’t at the level of Spielberg, Nolan, etc. doesn’t mean that he should automatically be lumped with Michael Bay as doing the “exact same thing” LOL. His movies are definitely better than Michael Bay movies. You even admitted they were groundbreaking. We can have some nuance.

7

ohnourfeelings t1_j2eguz5 wrote

Name a Bay movie even close to Terminator or aliens.

110

layer11 t1_j2egxed wrote

Lets say you're right and James Camerson is roughly equal to Michael Bay. The difference would be that Cameron was doing it 20+ years earlier.

7

No-Produce2097 t1_j2egz6e wrote

Avatar is somewhat better written I suppose (though I haven't seen the new one or most transformers movies).

Also James Cameron had made movies that are pretty acclaimed. Even aside from Terminator and Titanic, there is Aliens and T2.

James Cameron is still not quite as good a filmmaker as some of the ones you mention, but he has still made very good movies. Also, he's made groundbreaking advancements in CGI, underwater filming, and special effects. So even aside from the quality of the films themselves, he consistently has fantastic visuals (and that tech is later adopted by other filmmakers)

5

Chuck710Taylor t1_j2eh2fr wrote

I dislike JC but I won't say Avatar didn't push boundaries of what we see on the big screen.

15

gogadantes9 t1_j2eh3r2 wrote

See, your whole argument hinges on your opinion that Michael Bay's movies and James Cameron's movies are of the same quality level. Many, if not most people, don't think so at all. So for that many people your "argument" falls apart, because for us (I also share this opinion) these 2 filmmakers are not, at all, the same level.

14

ArthurSaga0 t1_j2ehaf8 wrote

Literally no one says his movies are good because they make a lot of money lol, people like his movies because...they think his movies are good.

You legit made this idea up in your head and decided to complain about something that no ones ever said.

131

TyperMcTyperson t1_j2ehmnd wrote

There was a time when JC was incredible. Nothing Bay has done is even remotely as good as terminator or aliens or abyss.

98

BeefyStrudel t1_j2ehoal wrote

James Cameron and Michael Bay >>>>> Chris Nolan.

Ascend your r/movies status and become an enlightened Bayhead.

−2

2011silveradoman t1_j2ehsv2 wrote

I love Michael Bay movies, plenty of explosions. Perfect for a home theater bassaholic

1

TomorrowsSong t1_j2ei389 wrote

Terminator 2 is an awesome and genre defining movie. He deserves the title of good director just for that one alone

5

grimeflea t1_j2ei57c wrote

Big difference is that Michael Bay Michael Bays every film he makes with his Bayisms - the swooping camera shots around the heroes, the huge megalotitan explosions, fuck’em car chases etc. this worked pretty decently in some films but it became pretty formulaic in everything. FWIW I love plenty of his films, but with time it feels like he got very thin on story and just super thick spread on action gimmicks. Personally I don’t see him today as the same director who made The Island or The Rock, but I’ll add that I thought Ambulance was a bit of a step up from all the Transformers salad he’d been making. James Cameron is a bit more legendary for his visionary projects. Sure maybe they don’t always tick the best boxes for story or character, but they’re deeply immersive and usually he tries to push some enormous boundaries vs making ‘safe’ stuff.

6

curlyhairlad t1_j2eibq5 wrote

Because your premise is wrong. People don’t say James Cameron movies are good because they make a lot of money. His high grossing films are just a consequence of his movies being good.

That being said, a movie doesn’t have to be “good” to make a lot of money (“good” meaning well written, acted, shot, etc.).

Michael Bay movies are what you expect them to be. There is a pretty sizable audience for his brand that buy tickets. His movies don’t have to be “good.” They just have to be what people who go to see a Michael Bay film are looking for.

4

Ionlypostwhenstoned0 t1_j2eijuf wrote

Replying to HumbleCamel9022 (#1,235,862)

I don’t even like Avatar but I have to ask…what do you expect them to achieve beyond what they’re made for…entertainment.

Cameron is a legend because of his previous films AND because he’s a high grosser. Bay has never achieved anything on the same level.

7

HumbleCamel9022 OP t1_j2eiklq wrote

Replying to No-Produce2097 (#1,235,517)

>Avatar is somewhat better written I suppose (though I haven't seen the new one or most transformers movies).

The way of water is even worse than the first movie and I don't think the first one is better written than let's say transformer1

−8

cmajor9900 t1_j2eiop5 wrote

Avatar is one of the most overrated movies ever. It's basically Pocahontas but with a blue civilization to subjugate instead of a brown one. And for a movie to spend ten years being made, yet the name they came up with for a resource that was very hard to obtain was "Unobtainium?" GTFOH

−3

xxStrangerxx t1_j2eippa wrote

I just love what you've done with the English language here

2

D-rox86 t1_j2eir0z wrote

Percentages and relative cost to money ratios. You might get a Blair witch that only cost 50k to make and gross 5 million. But it’s still only 5 million. When you’re talking making billions of dollars off a movie that cost hundreds of millions to make it goes to show how many more people actually went and watch that movie especially in today’s era of having things that you can download or pirate.

1

Dottsterisk t1_j2ej3ly wrote

Replying to ohnourfeelings (#1,235,467)

I don’t know if I’d choose any Bay film over Cameron’s best, but The Rock and Armageddon are up there IMO.

Both are more than solid spectacle crowd-pleasers—and both lean more into Cameron-style earnestness than some of the crassness that can sour Bay’s later work.

I’d say Armageddon, especially, could be in the same conversation as some of Cameron’s work.

10

BladeRunnerTHX t1_j2ejfvi wrote

Cameron makes filet mignon, Bay makes shit burgers. That's why

10

That-Soup3492 t1_j2ejhrj wrote

As everyone has pointed out, James Cameron is a much better film maker than Michael Bay on basically every level. For me, it's that Cameron movies are about things. They have relationships and themes that work. Bay's movies are loud, dumb, and sometimes just nihilistic assholery.

3

BleedGreen131824 t1_j2ejirh wrote

They both are equally terrible unless you are 13 years old…

0

Arpeggiatewithme t1_j2ejjkb wrote

Avatar is a single man’s passion projects. Regardless of whether you like it, comparing it to a cash grab like transformers is unfair. James Cameron’s been writing the avatar scripts since the 90’s and is only making them out of his passion for filmmaking and the environmental message he hopes to share. Dude has enough money to chill for countless lifetimes. That’s why he’s great. In a 100 years, T2, Aliens, Titanic, AND Avatar will still be looked back on fondly and he’ll be remembered as one of the greats alongside all the names you mentioned, and I’m sure they’d all agree. Other filmmakers tend to love his work.

And as much as I dislike most of his moves, Micheal bay is a technically amazing filmmaker. He knows big action and explosions and more importantly how to shoot it well.

I love directors like Nolan and Lynch but you gotta realize there’s more than one type of film. The dark cerebral shit is great when your in the mood but a lot of the times I just wanna see pretty blue people swim with alien whale and be amazed.

Think of it like music, sometimes your in the mood for something sad and complex like a Radiohead song but other times you just wanna dance to some abba, or vibe to a beat. It’s all just different, not necessarily better or worse.

4

RBlomax38 t1_j2ejkyl wrote

Titanic wasn’t just good “for its time”. It’s an insanely good movie that still looks amazing today

3

BahWeepGraNa8 t1_j2ejnpt wrote

The fact that you mentioned those two directors in the same sentence is a gigantic slap in the face to Cameron. Him being a great director has nothing to do with how much his films have earned. He's made some absolutely incredible movies in his career. Aliens, T2, Abyss, True Lies ect. Michael Bay makes soulless eye candy.

1

puudji t1_j2ejtyq wrote

Titanic, Aliens and Terminator 2 are possibly the top, or top 5 of their genre of all time. Titanic has more competition but the scope of that movie really makes it stand out. I think you're underestimating T2 and Aliens, OP. These three movies alone catapult JC into the top tier of modern filmmakers. Also, please note Aliens was a certified masterpiece and it used mostly low-fi visual effects.

Then you add in Avatar as a modern marvel in taking a giant leap in CGI use. The guy was incredibly well rounded. I'm not sure he's there anymore but the legacy he made will absolutely last.

1

doc_1eye t1_j2ejvvg wrote

  1. James Cameron has range. Terminator, Aliens and Abyss are action/thrillers, Terminator 2 is a straight up action popcorn flick, True Lies is an action comedy, Titanic is a drama, and Avatar is an epic. Michael Bay just makes the same film over and over again.

  2. James Cameron is constantly pushing the boundaries of what can be done. Abyss and Terminator 2 did things with CGI that had never been done before. Avatar did the same with 3D. Michael Bay has never done anything innovative whatsoever.

3

Nivekian13 t1_j2ejxlx wrote

FFS... Just stop betting against the guy, then act like sanctimonious pricks when (surprise) Camerons movies are a hit.

​

Take the L, don't comment about Cameron or audiences tastes.

​

You jerks need to literally cope with your petty grievances against the man.

1

monodopple t1_j2ejy9h wrote

I think pain and gain is one of his best movies outside of the rock. Bay is a showman and hides a lot of what his story lacks in flash. He can make things look really slick, but I don't think he cares a lot about what he puts out.

James Cameron is an innovator who can bring story and spectacle to the screen. While his stories can be lacking, the experience usually isn't. I feel like he cares more about what he's doin and putting out there.

1

HumbleCamel9022 OP t1_j2ejzgr wrote

Replying to Ionlypostwhenstoned0 (#1,236,044)

>I don’t even like Avatar but I have to ask…what do you expect them to achieve beyond what they’re made for…entertainment

So just like Michael bay's transformers which redditors like to bash

I have no problem with a filmmaker who set out to Gross as much as possible at Box-office but only problem with it is when people think that director is among the greatest of all time because of it

−5

XtianS t1_j2ek7vm wrote

I know a lot of learned people who have more affection for Bay than Cameron. He's a lot more self-aware than Cameron and way more than people give him credit for.

That's not to say Bay is on equal ground. Cameron is a far better director, but he is as commercial as they come. It's easier to be down on Bay, because he spent 10 years making absolute trash transformers movies. If Cameron had gone through a similar period, he might be viewed differently. Still, I'm of the opinion the original avatar is as pure popcorn and bubblegum as you can get.

I would not take anyone seriously who was fully cheerleading Cameron at the same time as poo-pooing Bay. That's just pretentious fanboyness.

If you look at avatar 1 and ambulance as examples. Ambulance is a very stupid movie that is fully aware of what it is, which makes it a lot more enjoyable to watch. It’s like Bay on Bay. Avatar 1 is also a very stupid movie, but it’s very self-serious, which is like listening to the muffled sound of someone talking with their head entirely up their own ass.

1

brucewayne1935 t1_j2ek9k4 wrote

Because James Cameron makes good movies and Michael Bay doesn’t.

1

DisasterPeace7 t1_j2ek9sx wrote

That's not WHY people say Cameron is a great filmmaker, he's considered a great filmmaker because he has been at the helm of some highly entertaining and quality movies, some of which have progressed technology on film and been impactful in that way, it's just that a large part of his success and Legacy is the money that his films generate, like for example you look at the Avatar movies and the big meme is that they're not as relevant in pop culture as they should be, I would argue that the pop culture relevancy of Avatar is the money that it made

1

SteffeEric t1_j2ekc04 wrote

Replying to Dottsterisk (#1,236,236)

Armageddon is not that good. The entire premise that they need to train these guys to be astronauts (which is like super difficult) is ridiculous.

Also the trope of someone having to self detonate the thing that will surely kill you was already overdone in the 90s.

It’s fine for what it is but not on the level of those two at all in my opinion.

6

honeyfixit t1_j2ekcv7 wrote

JC makes visually stunning movies with a decent plot. MB ruins childhood memories and calls it a movie.

1

drosodoc t1_j2eke2h wrote

Replying to Purple-Age-233 (#1,235,433)

Aliens and T2 absolutely belong in the conversation with Raiders, Jurassic Park, Jaws, The Dark Knight, or Inception. Cameron is in the same league as Nolan or Spielberg. All three are vastly superior to Michael Bay.

3

KingRemoStar t1_j2ekfay wrote

I had to look up Michael bay movies. I love the Quiet Place franchise but that his films produced really aren’t that great for a guy that has a huge name.

1

MannaJamma t1_j2ekfue wrote

It isn't box office. While both directors make money, one makes films that are beloved and the other makes films that are tolerated.

1

uksid1976 t1_j2ekhar wrote

Great film making doesn’t mean great story telling. James delivers and has delivered masterful pieces of work. Spectacular visionary experiences for the audience, some of which involves him and his team engineering new equipment and techniques which completely change the film making game.

1

Salvzeri t1_j2ekhg5 wrote

Replying to ML523 (#1,235,399)

I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that James Cameron at least is trying to tell a story. I don't think anyone would argue that Michael Bay is telling a story.

4

logicalnoise t1_j2ekoae wrote

Cameron's sense of mise en scene is masterwork. He arranges giant action sequences that track well. They show plot points without telling. When Whedon had to make the battle of new York in avengers 1 he studied Cameron's work. I'm not wild about the avatar series but Cameron's work is among the best action ever.

1

Butch_Beth t1_j2ekt5s wrote

Critical and commercial success are different things, achieving both with one film is impressive.

1

The-Mandalorian t1_j2ekzld wrote

Cameron’s films usually get good reviews and reception.

Michael Bay’s films usually get awful reviews and reception.

1

Beforemath t1_j2el0c0 wrote

People act like Jim Cameron is a great filmmaker because he’s made some of the best action and sci movies of all time. If they made $10 in box office, movies like Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and True Lies would still be five star classics.

1

improper84 t1_j2el63d wrote

Replying to SteffeEric (#1,236,640)

Ben Affleck is amazing on the commentary track for Armageddon.

"'These guys may be astronauts, but they don't know jack about drilling.' What?!? How hard can it be? You point the drill at the ground and turn it on."

2

BobbiFrapples t1_j2el7s0 wrote

The Terminator? T2: Judgement Day? Titanic? True Lies?

Come on…

2

mindpieces t1_j2el82o wrote

Because James Cameron is a much, much better filmmaker than Michael Bay. The end.

1

buzlink t1_j2el8tt wrote

Have you seen Terminator 2?

1

ryangw1982 t1_j2eld3j wrote

Are you serious?

Cameron is a visionary who has made some of the best films ever made.

1

LynxJesus t1_j2ele79 wrote

Cameron's movies are a tiny bit more artistic than Bay's.

Having seen both of them in interviews though, I like Bay a lot better: he's a lot more honest about what they both ultimately do: pump high-grossing movies for the masses.

If Bay had (for example) directed Titanic, it probably would have been a lot more CGI, and probably some slightly worse acting. But the script and the wide-appeal story (that one-night stand remembered 84 years later because "true love") would remain the same.

2

ProDunga t1_j2elexp wrote

Both get a lot of hate Micheal Bay in particular is probably the most over hated director. Bad Boys kicks ass as well as Pain & Gain (only time The Rock doesn’t play himself and actually acts). Also as a kid transformer movies where beast.

2

JDDW t1_j2elgaf wrote

Replying to HumbleCamel9022 (#1,236,260)

Maybe if you dont know movies very well....Alien, terminator 2 and the Abyss are all top scifis of all time easily. Transformers is just an easily forgotten blockbuster movie with shitty acting.

2

Talik1978 t1_j2elku1 wrote

Replying to Warm-Enthusiasm-9534 (#1,235,710)

This reads to me like:

'Name a meat that company sells better than prime rib or kobe beef.'

'I don't think his meats even reach new York strip or 3 day old McDonald's hamburgers.'

The other three are great movies? But True Lies was horrible.

−3

thejokerofunfic t1_j2elnbu wrote

Avatar is the odd one out in his filmography. Most of his work is excellent and it has nothing to do with box-office

1

hoxxxxx t1_j2elpvj wrote

i don't know about the box office numbers and i'm always confused about people that care about that sort of thing while having no connection to the profits being made, with that said cameron is an incredibly filmmaker and a much better one than bay. and i love bay's movies btw.

cameron is a visionary director, just look at his career.

1

Dottsterisk t1_j2eltxx wrote

Replying to SteffeEric (#1,236,640)

The premise is actually in line with how NASA operates. Mission specialists are experts in their field and are given enough astronaut training to make the flight and survive on board with the other astronauts.

And the self-detonation thing is a trope, but let’s not pretend that James Cameron is above simple storytelling or that simple storytelling is bad. That moment doesn’t work because of the surprise thrill of “Oh no! Remote detonation!” but because of the emotional payoff between those three characters: Harry, AJ, and Grace.

2

visualingo t1_j2elyfz wrote

Replying to agoodyearforbrownies (#1,235,998)

I love Avatar. I’ve seen it a thousand times. Watched part 2 just last week. That said, most of the movies and their dialog is cringeworthy. Avatar 2 is literally part 1 set on water.

But they’re fun, and I love the worlds they created.

1

al323211 t1_j2em2n1 wrote

This is a false premise. James Cameron movies make a lot of money because they are good. Transformers movies make a lot of money because they’re associated with a popular brand.

James Cameron makes movies with simple plots, sure. But he also writes character-driven narratives that aren’t really that focused on plot to begin with. Look at even his most acclaimed films on this sub and they’re all relatively simple plot-wise even in comparison to Avatar 2. Many popular action blockbusters are. I don’t see anyone pissing on A New Hope or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Jaws for “having a simple plot”. Another recent example would be Top Gun: Maverick.

What propels James Cameron films (and the four other aforementioned films) above typical action films is that the characters are compelling and memorable and the action scenes are visceral, relevant to the character’s emotion journey, arc, development, etc, and they are easy to follow. Michael Bay does neither of these things. His characters suck and are unlikable and his action scenes are impossible to make sense of at all and have no larger purpose and therefore are not that thrilling at all.

Just a sidebar as I’m seeing it in a lot of comments - folks that hold up “unobtainium” as the epitome of bad writing must be unaware of how whimsical scientists are when they discover and name a lot of shit that exists in the real world. Frequently cheeky and on-the-nose. It’s really not that ridiculous or unbelievable.

1

[deleted] t1_j2em883 wrote

Now no one will take any of your future posts on films seriously

1

SteffeEric t1_j2em8cl wrote

Replying to improper84 (#1,236,921)

I imagine the extensive training you need to drill for oil is only a step or 57 behind going to space.

Without that Aerosmith song I think Armageddon is very forgettable and I had the VHS and watched it at least 5 times.

2

biggaywizard t1_j2eme4v wrote

I think they both suck balls. The only Cameron film I liked was Aliens. I fucking utterly hate Avatar, that's the#1 shittiest film I've ever seen.

1

Ionlypostwhenstoned0 t1_j2emeqt wrote

Replying to HumbleCamel9022 (#1,236,541)

Well if you’re comparing Transformers to Avatar I’m not going to really argue, I don’t like either. Although with Transformers it’s because it has no discernible story and was a mess, Avatar had a pedestrian story but was very pretty.

But JC gets bashed on here for Avatar, or at least the movie does. JC isn’t a legend because of Avatar though, it’s for Aliens and Terminator 1 and 2 and basically influencing a generation of film makers with movies that were visually and narratively fantastic. Bay hadn’t done that.

3

DemonicFluffyMog t1_j2emguk wrote

Basically, because Cameron makes blockbusters for adults, while Bay is a one trick (here it is, https://youtu.be/2THVvshvq0Q) jumped up as director who markets to teenage boys with his cheap pornographer sensibility.

1

Brilliant_Lettuce_14 t1_j2emhm7 wrote

Hmm 2 hours of lens flare and explosions and 360 shots don’t compare to True Lies/any other Cameron Project. Idek where this comparison came from. soulja boy voice MiChAel BaY???!?!?!

1

bibliographyfreak t1_j2emiii wrote

Replying to ML523 (#1,235,399)

Thousand percent agree. I think the case could be pretty easily made that neither Avatar is “mediocre.” The plot is tired but overall as a cinematic experience it undeniably hits some really high notes.

1

cantonic t1_j2emol1 wrote

Replying to Scoob1978 (#1,236,822)

Honestly that’s probably the most brutal takedown of Michael Bay there is. I’m sure Bay himself has had the same thought and it haunts his dreams.

Cameron isn’t the worlds best filmmaker, but whatever he does, he does 100%. All of his activities surrounding the actual filming of Titanic are like bonkers-level of obsession. Hell, the man went to the bottom of the Mariana Trench!

He’s like Captain America. He’s not the strongest or smartest, but when he does something, he does it at peak human efficiency. This analogy might be completely nuts.

3

An_odd_walrus t1_j2emr6a wrote

Also I think James Cameron has done more for movie making as a whole. He patents new vfx techniques practically every film and has pioneered many aspects of modern movie making today. I think bay has had the good fortune of building off of those techniques as well as the rest of the film industry. Would endgame be possible without the tech from avatar? Would aliens have become as massive without him? Not to mention he helped find the titanic. Lol.

1

SaintMotel6 t1_j2emt64 wrote

Look I know the past 15 years haven’t been kind to James Cameron’s legacy- but he is genuinely one of the greatest directors of his generation. Michael Bay is a good director, (who doesn’t deserve all the hate he gets) but he isn’t in Cameron’s league. To put it simply: Cameron could make any Bay movie, but Bay couldn’t make any Cameron movie.

1

chadisdangerous t1_j2emvq8 wrote

Replying to LynxJesus (#1,237,010)

>If Bay had (for example) directed Titanic, it probably would have been a lot more CGI, and probably some slightly worse acting. But the script and the wide-appeal story (that one-night stand remembered 84 years later because "true love") would remain the same.

I don't get the point you're making here. Cameron wrote Titanic, so that story and heart in the script is coming from him, and Titanic is absolutely packed with CGI as it is.

A Bay-directed Titanic would probably look like Pearl Harbor, because that's what Pearl Harbor was trying to be. And that movie made a fraction of the money and got much, much worse reviews.

1

drgnrbrn316 t1_j2en3um wrote

While I agree that James Cameron is overrated, I wouldn't say he is a bad director and I certainly wouldn't rank him with Michael Bay.

Cameron's Avatar movies are not overly original and some of the plot points are rather shallow, but at least the plot is coherent and he does try to push creative boundaries. Bay's Transformer movies have no coherent plot and exist purely for spectacle and explosions. Bay routinely reuses shots in his movies, so he's not even pushing boundaries on his spectacle.

Just because both franchises have an abundance of CG doesn't make them the same in quality.

1

Hyper_2005 t1_j2en410 wrote

It's not just the box office collection, Cameron's passion for filmmaking is quite evident from the fact that he takes decades to make a movie, to develop the technology necessary for making a movie as immersive as Avatar.

And his older films like Titanic, Terminator 2, Aliens, The Abyss are more than enough to put him among the greatest filmmakers who have ever lived.

But if you're under the pretext that James Cameron has made only one movie in his career, i.e, Piranha II: The Spawning, then yeah, Michael Bay is obviously the better director.

2

cthulhu944 t1_j2ent99 wrote

McDonalds sells a lot of burgers but you don't give them any Michelin stars.

2

drgnrbrn316 t1_j2eohkp wrote

Replying to ML523 (#1,235,399)

The first isn't all that great on a rewatch either. I can at least remember the plot of Avatar. Transformers 1 was about a pair of glasses, a box that turns things into robots, and Megan Fox being attractive. Anthony Anderson also ate a plate of donuts for some reason.

2

P0J0 t1_j2ep4qh wrote

Replying to ArthurSaga0 (#1,235,618)

There are people that say that though. They claim box office numbers when comparing Avatar to Endgame, for instance. I have only seen his Avatar movies and do not see how those differ much from a Michael Bay movie. They both produce movies with flashy special effects and little substance. Maybe Cameron's earlier movies were not like that, but his newer offerings certainly are.

2

DontToewsMeBro2 t1_j2evuhr wrote

This guy buys tickets to a machine gun Kelly concert instead of Rammstein

1

LA_viking t1_j2ewy01 wrote

Replying to Arpeggiatewithme (#1,236,386)

> And as much as I dislike most of his moves, Micheal bay is a technically amazing filmmaker. He knows big action and explosions and more importantly how to shoot it well.

Going to respectfully disagree with this. I'm in the industry and I can't stand the way Bay shoots. The camera is too immersed in the action and so shaky you can barely tell what is happening. Plus he is the worst kind of person you can imagine. Total ego maniac and downright rude. His films are very difficult to work on.

2

Arpeggiatewithme t1_j2ezrc6 wrote

Replying to LA_viking (#1,240,991)

Yeah I bet he sucks in person, he seems like a tool but I kinda love his camerawork. I know it’s definitely not for everyone but I like how it grounds the CGI and special effects. I hate those big sweeping impossible CGI camera shots that are everywhere in marvel movies.

1