Story wise Bay's 90's output was made in era where films were made to a different formula (I hate to distill it like that but most blockbusters are!) and characters and story were 2nd to spectacle. This isn't how it should be and the Terminators, Aliens or Die Hards show that it doesn't have to be the case. It's not like F & F is putting those elements at the forefront either, but they've had 7(!!) movies to build up a memorable bunch of characters that you want to see again.

Bay's earlier films though are awesome examples of action and I think the younger audiences on these boards (Damn, that makes me feel old :-( really need to go back and watch some of his stuff. Bad Boys II in particular has some of the most impressive action scenes ever put to film - that car chase is ridiculous and outdoes almost any F & F scene (haven't seen 7 yet). You've also got to remember that F & F has had 7 (!!) movies through which to build characters.

I have no problem admitting that Michael Bay's most recent stuff as been excessively commercial and pretty lazy - he's basically sold out which pisses me off because he's capable of making some incredibly entertaining, and forgettable, popcorn cinema. Skipping the Transformers output though and looking back at The Rock, Armageddon, Bad Boys 1 and 2, and even Transformers 1, it's a completely different comparison.

We should be discussing their similarities, not differences! Both F & F franchises and Bay films try and use practical FX and action as much as possible and as an enormous fan of event cinema I can't welcome this enough. Throw in the M:I franchise and Bonds and you probably already named the big budget franchises that consistently make the effort to do things in camera and it makes a hell of a difference. F & F is basically ripping Bay off in that respect - but thankfully in a good way.