Michael Bay Goes Green – Recycles Movie Footage

When I was sitting in the screening for ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ last week, Luke Hickman leaned over to me during a big action set-piece, the one where the Autobots try to evade oncoming Decepticons on a busy freeway, and said, “I think this is footage from ‘The Island’.” Well, it turns out he was 100 percent right.

The big news on the ‘net this weekend was a YouTube video that shows split-screen comparisons of ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ and Michael Bay’s earlier sci-fi thriller ‘The Island‘.

It’s true that directors sometimes use their old stock footage if it works in context of the new movie they’re filming. Is this any different? First of all, ‘Transformers’ was shot in 3D, but of course these reused scenes couldn’t have been shot in 3D at the time. So they were obviously 3D conversions. Secondly, this is one of the most important and intense action scenes in the movie, and all Bay has done is digitally insert giant robots into footage he’d already used in another movie.

Take a look at the video. Let us know what you think. Is this a perfectly legitimate repurposing of old footage, or just laziness?



    • Seriously, your gonna give the guy who had a transformer piss on a dog in the first one a pass when he blatantly re-uses material like this?

      The movies make MILLIONS when they are crap, (pretty sure the 2nd one actually made money which is a joke) and he doesn’t have time to come up with new material?

      It didn’t exactly take away from my enjoyment of that scene, but I do feel a little robbed after the fact finding out that he can so easily interchange CGI and do that.

      This kind of thing just makes me angry though, are we going to see this becoming more common. Am I going to be seeing the same car chase sequences 10 years from now like a visual version of the wilhelm scream? I certainly hope not. While I can appreciate the wilhelm I think that a director should feel like crap if he’s forced to use someone elses material or his own from an older movie in a 100+ million dollar budget movie.

  1. KR

    For this type of movie, I think it’s lazy.

    Unlike older Disney movies where this was a known phenomenon (Same footage in parts of Robin Hood and Jungle Book, etc) and understandable due to the fact that those movies were all made by hand frame-by-frame.

    For a modern, live-action movie with a HUGE budget, it just reeks of laziness, especially when the newer movie is supposed to be offering cutting-edge, high-quality 3D. Using old footage that needs a 2D to 3D conversion in that case doesn’t seem right.

    When 99% of the point of the movie is the spectacle and quality of the image (rather than story, characters, acting, etc) I expect people to put a fair amount of effort into that key aspect.

  2. lazy. they give him all the money in the world and he does this? i watched masters of the universe this past weekend and it has aged well. it was nice to see a movie based on action figures to be the main focus of the movie. if you go to imdb , they had a hard time making the he man movie cause it was produced by my childhood heroes cannon pictures for 20 million and they didnt used double anything. mike gets 200 million and uses from his other films. loser.

  3. Brian H

    Just before this devolves into a thread about the Transformers movies and the people who love them, I would like to state that “the Island” not a good movie. Specifically, the reliance on these kind of scenes fills the second half of the movie and is the superlative characteristic for the outside world in the movie.

    I like the movie “the Rock,” but that car chase being expanded and recycled into the half the Island and the basis for the action in the Transformers movies is conceptually lazy.

    So really, the recycling of footage is less of an issue than the idea that before they ever shot a frame of Transformers, they had already devoted significant run time to recycled car chases.

  4. TJ Kats

    Agree that it is kind of lazy with the budget and the push for 3d but honestly out of a two and a half hour movie a few seconds shouldn’t make anyone go insane.

    • Although it may only be a few seconds that are 100% in common between the two movies, the rest of the Transformers scene appears to have been constructed of alternate angles and outtakes from footage shot for The Island.

    • PaulB

      Are you two serious? The topic is about reuse of footage, not the background on the particular shot.
      The only insensitivity here is your inane attack of the article writer as though it was your friend that was injured in this particular scene and you damand everyone know it.
      Please point us to all the other places where you have provided comment condemnation of every review or comment about a movie or scene that does not specifically highlight everyone injured during the making of it as obviously it is not the duty of everyone writing an article to do so.
      If you haven’t done so, please take you doctor prescribed chill pills and put your high horse in the stable.

  5. Jane Morgan

    The shot from ‘The Island’ was inserted after an accident occurred during the filming of that chase scene. A tow-cable snapped, hitting a film extra. Gabriella Cedillo. It resulted in serious head injury, leaving her paralyzed. They shut down the stunt location, and repurposed the footage from ‘The Island’ in post production to stay on budget, on deadline.

    This news is several days old. The only laziness here is your reporting.

    • vihdeeohfieuhl

      Thank you Jane.

      When I first read this blog post, my reaction was, “Did they not read about the accident, and events that led to them having to do this?”

      The reporting was not only lazy, it was highly insensitive. An extra is paralyzed from the stut that was originally supposed to be included here. It would have taken all of a few seconds for Aaron or anyone else at HDD to research that, but they were too damned obsessed with being self indulgent and posting more Bay bashing.

      • Aaron Peck

        It was in no way meant to be insensitive. This post was written on the 1st but wasn’t posted until today because of the holiday weekend. As you’ll see I posted in the HDD forums, after writing this, that there was a rumor that these scenes were reused because of the extra’s injury but I couldn’t find any real proof that was why they were reused. Still, at this point, all the news reports are speculating as to that being the reason.

      • Aaron Peck

        Still am unable to find a 100% reliable source, say like a Paramount press release or something like that saying that the extra being harmed was the exact reason why this footage was reused. IGN is the only place “reporting” that this is the case, but we still don’t have official word from the studio.


        The only other claims to this I can find are people commenting on the YouTube video and elsewhere.

        • Jane Morgan

          Do Hollywood studios usually release press releases for on-set injuries?

          My guess is that the girl got a corporate apology and a moneybag.

          On a personal note, I didn’t intend my post to be an attack. I meant my sentence about “lazy reporting” to be more as a friendly nudge. A smiley face felt inappropriate. I had no idea the ridiculousness it would unleash.

          I hereby retract my wayward tone, and affirm my affection for the writings of the Peckmeister.

          • Aaron Peck

            I know the girl’s family is in the process of suing the studio/filmmakers for her injury.

            As for press releases, I would think they would release a quick paragraph or two stating that this is the reason why they reused the footage since it’s getting such wide attention.

            Oh and thank you. No harm, no foul, Jane.

    • Ease up on the Peckmeister. HDD takes vacations, too, and even then, many of us just use that time to try to play catch up. It’s hard out here for a pimp, workin’ reviewin’ makin’ money for the rent.

      The injury, no one is disputing. Whether the injury is the reason for this bit of recycled footage, though, is in question. It seems rather convenient, and therefore probably not the truth. Just someone took production notes on TF3, said HAHA that’s it! and there’s the story from IGN.

  6. even though i haven’t seen the movie , i feel the shots tie the whole film together in one beautiful knot. it happened on an episode of wonder woman they used footage from an earlier episode where wonder woman runs to somewhere , tied that episode beautifully. 🙂

  7. EM

    Return of the Jedi, which I love, seems to reuse some Death Star footage from the first Star Wars, when in each film the superlaser is put into action. It’s just a few seconds, but the déjà vu takes me out of the movie.

    Oddly, it’s one of the things the revisionist editions don’t fix, at least so far.

  8. I just want to point out the fact that the “split screen” video is using a Cam source. Yeah, the guy who made it may have a keen eye, but I wonder how long before the MPAA comes after him for either downloading or distributing CAM films.

    Of course, I can then take that one step futher and say that HDD’s banner image also takes screenshot from said CAM source. But I will assume that was taken from the Youtube clip

    • The banner image was compiled from the YouTube video. I have no idea the source of the clips in the YouTube video. We do not take any responsibility for that. We’re merely reblogging a video that’s been all over the internet the last few days.

  9. Evan Withrow

    Ditto to what Jane said. Could not have said it better myself. Despite there being a very reasonable (and tragic) explanation for reusing the footage, my guess is that the majority of people will just write it off as a bad excuse and vilify Bay for being lazy. Of course this would not be a big surprise considering what I have read on here lately.

  10. ok you can throw out that tragic b.s. out the window. if the stunt had worked it would still be a knock off of a shot he did on the island. hes lazy. if he wasn’t he wouldn’t put that lazy spin camera get up from the ground slow motion shot he uses in every movie.

    • Evan Withrow

      Someone becoming paralyzed is usually pretty tragic. At least I think the family of the extra would agree. Try and grow up a little bit. Maybe it is the reason the footage was used, maybe it wasn’t. You do not know and neither do I. I was just pointing out that people have been jumping all over Michael Bay lately without asking any questions. If you woke up tomorrow and could not move part of your body for the rest of your life you might change your tune. Or you can continue to lead a life in which your ability to win an argument on a movie blog defines you. So please, continue to pontificate crass comments.

      • you try and grow up and read. it’s a stunt. stunts are done by stuntmen. they know going in that something could go wrong , thats part of the job. there are several posts on here guilting aaron because someone is paralized from a stunt that went wrong and that he is lazy for not looking into this. the point of the blog is michael bay lazy for putting two shots in of a movie he did 6 years ago. not about the feeling of a stuntman being injured on the set. or the family feelings. if michael bay cared about the feelings of the stuntman , he would of droped the scene entirely.

        • To be clear about what happened, the person injured was not a stuntwoman, but rather just a regular civilian extra that Bay instructed to drive a car in the middle of a big stunt scene. Whether this was reckless or totally unforeseeable is a separate topic that I don’t think we need to get into.

        • vihdeeohfieuhl

          An extra was injured and paralyzed! Not a stuntwoman! The entire stunt was shut down! He did drop the scene entirely! Do you even read any of the other posts? Or are you too obsessed with “winning” to even think about anything else?

          None of this has anytying to do with Bay or anyone else that worked on DOTM being lazy. If you could devote five seconds to actually making an effort to understand the situation, you would get that. The shots from The Island only ended up being used because production on this particular shot was shut down entirely. This information can be easily read on many of the other posts, as well as many other places online, but somehow you choose to ignore it, so that you can argue that injuries to stunt-workers — which AGAIN, the woman who was injured was not! — are no big deal, and that Bay and other people working on DOTM are lazy.

          Give it up. Show a little tact. In your effort to “win” your argument, you just end up looking crass (and that’s putting it mildly and politely).

          • it has nothing to do with winning or losing. it’s about making a point. my point is the blog is about weather or not michael bay is lazy by inserting footage from the island into transformers 3. the fact that a crew member was paralyzed during filming of the scene is sad , it is not the focus of the blog. now if you want to go down that road michael bay was extremely lazy and let the extra or whomever it was , into that car. it should of been handled by professionals. and after that accident , michael bay should of scraped that scene.

          • vihdeeohfieuhl

            I guess you’ll just never get it. You’re missing the entire point. The original scene being filmed was scrapped! That’s the alleged reason why the old footage was reused.

          • he had to get that scene in that movie. he had to get that shot in the movie. had a huge budget , couldn’t go around the scene , he used a shot from his other movie , he is then lazy.

    • vihdeeohfieuhl

      NO! It wouldn’t be a knock off of a shot he did on The Island! That’s the entire point! How do you not see that?

      The entire shot and resulting scene was entirely different than the one they ended up having to go with.

      • We still have no confirmation or proof that this footage being reused is in any way related to that accident. All we have is speculation that was apparently initiated by IGN with no source. Please do not talk about this as if it’s concrete fact, or that you somehow know what the original scene was supposed to be.

        This is how rumor becomes “common knowledge” on the internet. One person talks out of his or her ass, and then suddenly everyone else accepts it as gospel.

        At this point, all we know for certain is that Michael Bay re-used action footage from The Island in the latest Transformers. He likewise re-used footage from Pearl Harbor in the first Transformers, which establishes that he has a track record of doing such things.

        • vihdeeohfieuhl

          You simply don’t want to accept that the possibility that the old footage was reused due to the accident exists. The reason why you don’t want to accept this possibility is because it involves Bay.

          If this exact same story was regarding one of your favorite directors, or even a director you are indifferent about, you would be hell bent on making a point that it only happened because of an accident that took place.

          If you really want to refer to people talking out of their ass, why don’t you look in the mirror? It’s okay for you to act like it’s written in stone that it’s likely none of this has to do with the accident, but if someone suggests otherwise, they are an idiot that is trying to turn gossip into fact. Well, how are you doing anything differently? You’re saying that the footage being reused probably has nothing to do with the accident, and that any story suggesting that it does is merely speculation. That’s no different from someone saying that the footage being reused resulted from the accident, and that any story suggesting otherwise is merely speculation.

          • Aaron Peck

            I have no problem accepting that is the reason, but only when Paramount officially says that is the reason. Until then it’s speculation.

          • It isn’t that I won’t “accept the possibility” that this recycled footage has to do with that accident. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. Right now, that’s all it is, a POSSIBILITY.

            So please stop talking about it as if it’s an absolute fact, that there’s no other possible reason, that you know what really happened, that you know what the original scene was supposed to be, or that you know that Michael Bay scrapped the whole original scene to replace it with this. You do not KNOW any of these things. You are making connections that are not supported by any evidence.

            For all we know, that extra could have been injured while filming a completely different scene, which may or may not have been completed and may or may not be in the movie right now. Michael Bay may have planned to re-use this footage from The Island all along. Neither you nor I know what really happened here.

            The only evidence we have is the completed product, which recycles footage from his old movie. Anything else is circumstantial and speculation, and your continuing to shout about it doesn’t make your argument a fact.

            The intent of Aaron’s post was to prompt a discussion about the scene. If, as part of that discussion, you want to present a theory about what happened, you are more than entitled to do that. But if you’re going to insist that your theory is indisputable fact, you’ll need to cite a definitive source for this information, which unfortunately does not exist right now.

            Until then, other possible explanations are still on the table, and it is not “insensitive” for us to discuss them.

          • vihdeeohfieuhl

            You say, “Please stop talking about it as if it’s an absolute fact.” And then you do the exact same thing. Please stop suggesting that the accident is not the reason why this took place, and discussing it as if it’s absolute fact. Right now that is only a POSSIBILITY.

            You do not KNOW any of these things. You are drawing conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

            For all we know, the originally intended scene would have looked absolutely nothing like the scene that ultimately ended up in the film. You have absolutely no reason to suggest that Bay may have planned to re-use this footage from The Island all along. You’re just speculating. You do not KNOW this, and you have absolutely no reason to insinuate it.

            The completed product is not evidence of anything at all. Please stop talking about it as if that is fact. The finished product doesn’t prove anything. It’s just as convenient to say that the finished product is evidence, and say that as if it’s concrete evidence, as it is to say that the finished product was never supposed to end up that way at all. Right now, you don’t KNOW one way or the other.

          • vihdeeohfieuhl, re-read all of my comments in this thread and all of your own. The only one here making definitive statements about what happened is you.

            “The entire stunt was shut down! He did drop the scene entirely!”

            “The shots from The Island only ended up being used because production on this particular shot was shut down entirely.”

            “Said footage was reused because production on the new footage being shot was SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY. It was shut down entirely due to an extremely sad situation in which a human being was paralyzed.”

            “The original scene being filmed was scrapped! That’s the alleged reason why the old footage was reused.”

            “The entire shot and resulting scene was entirely different than the one they ended up having to go with.”

            What is the source of this information?

          • vihdeeohfieuhl

            You conveniently left out all of the statements that you have made.

            Why don’t you write up another post and include all of the statements you have made regarding the situation.

            Please provide a link to a story or article that provides any information regarding the basis of your information.

            Where are you getting your information? What is influencing your statements?

  11. BlackN

    i can see both sides of the argument.
    in one hand, i think it was a very clever way for the film-makers/editors to enhance the overall scene bu adding these few seconds of old footage, but on the other hand, it’s 2011, and the internet is full of people that WILL notice this sort of thing.. So maybe in future, they should stick to UNUSED old footage if they feel the need to dip into the archives to complete new scenes?

  12. Luke Hickman

    There’s no argument here at all. He reused footage plain and simply. He did the same thing with the first movie. He used Pearl Harbor footage. Google it. Whether someone got hurt or not is another story. This isn’t a post on THAT unconfirmed story. Sounds to me like a filmmaker is trying to cover his butt for getting caught again.

    • vihdeeohfieuhl

      You’re right. There is no argument. And yet, you can’t resist arguing. Foot was reused. Said footage was reused because production on the new footage being shot was SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY. It was shut down entirely due to an extremely sad situation in which a human being was paralyzed.

      I guess none of that matters to you because, “There’s no argument here at all.” I presume you believe the production on the new shots should have resumed the moment they took the injured woman to the hospital.

      By the way, the rumor about Pearl Harbor footage being used in Transformers is just that, a rumor. It also has nothing to do with this particular story. Thought that was worth pointing out.

      • Aaron Peck

        Provide a link to a solid news story or interview with Bay/Paramount that says this is the real reason for the footage being used, and the argument is indeed over.

      • Luke Hickman


        you’re the only person who gets hostile and trollish in the blog comments. it’s one thing to argue your point (which is why all of us are here), but it’s another thing to get angry and cut into anyone who doesn’t side with you.

        the biggest reason I love writing for HDD is because the readers are fellow film-loving geeks like me. I talking movies with other movie nerds.

        it’s perfectly fine for you to have your own opinion, but please stop cutting down people for not agreeing with your point. it’s killing the mood.

        • vihdeeohfieuhl


          I humbly disagree with you. I feel that I am most certainly not the only one that expresses hostility in the blog comments. I will exonerate you of doing so for the most part, but if you can really read through Josh’s responses to others, or even Aaron’s responses to others, and feel that I am the only one that becomes hostile or antagonistic, I really don’t know what to say.

          You ask me to stop “cutting into people”, but I feel that it’s all an affable game of “one-upsmanship” isn’t it? If not, I offer my most earnest apologies to anyone that I may have offended, or “cut into” or “cut down.”

          I don’t think you understand the concept of trolls in blogs. I’m definitely not trolling. I have an unadulterated passion for film, and I like to engage in intellectual conversations about it. My fervor for film is one of my only authentic passions in life. When the discussions turn into senseless and bile fueled arguments, it is extremely off-putting and repellent to me. As I have stated before, I’m not even a fan of Michael Bay, or a Bay apologist, but I felt that the remarks were so distasteful and uninviting, it gave me an instinctual urge to defend him, and try to direct the conversation elsewhere.

          With that said, I still want to emphasize that I do understand what you’re saying, and once again offer my heartfelt apology. I feel terrible that I have made you feel that way. I can only imagine that I have made others feel that way as well. I will cease all visitation and use of the HDD bonus view. I owe it to you and anyone else that I have insulted or offended. Allow me to express my sorrow one last time, and exit by saying that I am sorry.

        • vihdeeohfieuhl

          I tried to include this in my last post, but it got cut out somehow. Please read Aaron’s remark at the bottom of the page. If you don’t feel that it is hostile, I simply must not understand the concept of it at all.

    • We will, just as soon as they stop being news and people stop talking about them. Don’t you worry, Michael Bay loves all this attention he’s getting around the ‘net.

      For whatever it’s worth, we don’t currently have any more posts about Transformers scheduled for the rest of this week.

  13. Who cares, directors have done this in the past and we probably never noticed, so someone notices (with a possible legitimate reason for using it) and now its a terrible thing, of course since its Michael Bay its blown even more out of proportion, whatever is all I got to say, just tired of reading about Bay getting bashed all the freaking time, its either that or that stupid girl who got off for murder….

  14. Baked waker

    This is as dismaying and insensitive a comment string I have ever read on this site. For a few comments there, I thought I was on 411mania.

  15. Jane Morgan

    Two of the most acclaimed writers of our time, David Mamet and Aaron Sorkin, reuses their own lines of dialogue all the time.

    Michael Bay has a bag of camera movements he will reuse to his grave.

    Spielberg, Malick, Fincher, Mann, Tatantino, Miike, et al.

    Forrest Gump was made in America, from 100% recycled materials.

    Storytellers in all mediums reuse plot conventions. The end of act two bullshit in almost every chick flick is even embarrassing to fans of the genre.

    Where do we draw the line in the sand?

    Today’s attack on Michael Bay is sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

  16. Kevin

    To me, it’s no better/no worse than when “Star Trek: Generations” used the exact same Klingon Bird-of-Prey explosion from the immediately previous film, “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country”.

    • Star Trek II has an even more egregious example when it recycles footage from the shuttlecraft-tour-of-the-Enterprise scene from Star Trek: TMP.

      • Kevin

        Absolutely. And don’t even get me started on the various “Dominion War” episodes of “Deep Space Nine”… 😉

  17. Good God, everyone is so butt-hurt over Michael Bay lately. I’m prepared to concede that he is the dominant creative force in Hollywood and a general national treasure if we can just move on to some other topic. What ever happened to “Bad Movie Night?” Let’s direct some negative energy elsewhere shall we? And for the love of God, don’t line up any Michael Bay movies for that!

    • vihdeeohfieuhl


      HDD really needs to knock it off and stop shitting on Bay.

      I’m not even a Bay fan, but I have felt an instinctual urge to defend him based on the nonsensical way that HDD has attacked him.

      More than half of all new blog entries on the bonus view in the last few weeks, have been directing negative attention towards Bay or something related to Bay.

      Enough is enough!

      HDD needs to make a pact to go at least a month without any new blog entries regarding anything about Bay.

      I think we are all well beyond sick of it.

      • Aaron Peck

        Lordy! It was a news post that everyone else on the internet has posted about. EVERYONE. So we posted about it too. There’s nothing inflammatory about Bay or ‘Transformers’ in the original post.

        I acknowledged that directors reuse footage. I gave some reasons why this instance may be different, then I asked a question for discussion.

      • There you go playing with the facts again, vihdeeohfieuhl. In the past month, we’ve had exactly 10 posts tagged with “Michael Bay.” Before that, the most recent post about him was three months earlier, and before that it gets really spotty.

        In that past month, we’ve run 114 posts. That would be less than 9% of posts, not “more than half.” That’s not even enough to register in the “Useful Tags” cloud on the blog’s main page.

        I think you’ve made it clear that you are sick of the Michael Bay coverage, but you do not speak for everyone. Surrounding the release of Transformers, these Bay posts have consistently been the blog’s most popular and most commented upon.

        But, as I said in another comment earlier today, we don’t currently have any other Michael Bay or Transformers posts scheduled for the rest of this week. With plenty of other big movies coming out, discussion will naturally drift to other topics.

  18. Jimmy

    I’m starting to think vihdeeohfieuhl is Michael Bay himself, seriously he can’t stop defending Bay. Or maybe someone who works for Bay? Ha ha.

  19. vihdeeohfieuhl

    There you go either intentionally manipulating what I say to conveniently fit it within your own structure for counter argument, or “accidentally” misunderstanding me.

    When I said that more than half of the entries were pertaining to Bay, or something related to Bay, I wasn’t saying that more than half of the bonus view main posts were about Bay. I think you probably knew that. I also said in the past few weeks. I never said anything about the past month or prior to the last month.

    Why don’t you check the statistics on how many comments, entries, remarks, or whatever else you want to call them were pertaining to Bay or something related to Bay in the past few weeks. You said it yourself, “…these Bay posts have consistently been the blog’s most popular and most commented upon.”

    I would wager that I am right on the money saying that more than half of all entries in the past few weeks have been pertaining to Bay. Furthermore, just because the Bay related posts are the most popular and commented on doesn’t mean that people aren’t sick of them. That’s my entire point in a nut shell.

    The posts regarding Bay are dominating the bonus view and not allowing discussion of other, more interesting things. A large number of comments on the Bay posts are essentially saying the exact same thing, “Enough is enough.”

    • Your definition of “blog entries” as including reader comments is a real stretch. We can only be held responsible for the things we actually write.

      We have provided plenty of other post topics for people to discuss if they want. That the majority of recent comments have focused on these Bay posts is clearly indicative that it’s a topic that people are interested in and want to talk about.

      When you claim that a large number of the comments are saying “enough is enough,” I think you’ll find that the vast majority of THOSE comments are coming from you. If you’re not interested in this topic, the solution is very simple: Don’t comment on it. Just move on to the next post and let others discuss if they want. We’ve got a lot of TV coverage on deck today, and will be talking about a whole new batch of non-Michael-Bay movies as we get closer to the weekend.

      • vihdeeohfieuhl

        Oh yes, definitely a real stretch to call comments or remarks entries. Absolutely!

        The fact that the majority of recent comments/entries/remarks have focused on these Bay posts is anything but indicative that it’s a topic that people are interested in and want to talk about. It’s indicative that it’s a topic that is being forced down people’s throats. They have no choice but to read through it all. If they want to post a response at all, they have to scroll through hundreds of other ones about Bay.

        When you claim that, “I think you’ll find that the vast majority of THOSE comments are coming from you.” That’s not the case at all. Go back and read through the comments. Many people have written many responses that express their wishes for the comments to start heading in a different direction.

        While you are right that Bay is a relevant subject, and that many people want to discuss Bay related material, you’re wrong in thinking that most people don’t want those conversations to take a different shape. However, HDD has structured and negatively slanted any and all Bay related material to only allow for the discussions to be focused on taking a steaming shit on Bay. Can you point out one semi-positive thing that anybody on the HDD staff has said about Bay or anything related to Bay?

        I already know how you will respond to that one, so let me rephrase. Can you point out one neutral thing that anybody on the HDD staff has said in regards to Bay? If every discussion is so negatively slanted to open up a shitting on Bay fest, every time. How is that ever going to inspire intellectual conversation? I’m sorry, but it simply never will. It can only ever inspire, “shit on Bay or get off the pot” conversation.

        • Aaron Peck

          The entirety of the original post is completely neutral. It isn’t slanted negatively at all. Like I commented above, I acknowledged that directors reuse footage, I gave some reasons why this instance may be different, and I asked a question.

          • vihdeeohfieuhl

            Oh yes, I’m sure you had no negative intent at all. 😉

            You never could have imagined that the original post would turn into a “shitting on Bay” fest.

            You were merely asking a question.

            You had absolutely no influence whatsoever on the direction of the conversation.

            In your opinion, asking a question about Bay re-using footage from one of his previous films, could never imply anything negative.

            In spite of your recent review of his latest film, Luke’s recent review of his latest film, the plethora of anti-bay comments and remarks from HDD staff, and all of the recent vitriol surrounding any and all things Bay, you never imagined in a million years that a post like that might be construed in a negative light.

          • Aaron Peck

            You’re right. I didn’t. It was a NEWS POST and a query to readers. I purposefully didn’t write in any vitriolic comments into my post, because they weren’t needed. Many other websites made snide comments about Bay, Meghan Fox, and how dumb the movies are, but I didn’t. It doesn’t matter what I or any of the HDD writers think of the movie or the director. We asked a question to our readers, “Hey look at this, what do you think? Lazy or perfectly fine?” People voiced their comments, you wrote long-winded diatribes. Everyone got a say.

            Heaven forbid we post any news that is getting talked about online. What is this a blog or something?

          • Jane Morgan

            Let’s make snide comments about Megan Fox.

            She working on her comeback, starring in a Jennifer Westfeldt movie, a Judd Apatow movie, and a Sacha Baron Cohen movie.

            I understand that the reason her nude scene was cut from ‘Jennifer’s Body’ is because she has the chicken legs.

          • Aaron Peck

            After watching ‘Passion Play’ I have a hard time believing she’ll be coming back any time soon. That’s to assume she was here in the first place.

          • Jane Morgan

            ‘Passion Play’ made $3,669 at the box office, which is the second Mickey Rourke movie to gross less than five thousand dollars.

            Did you see the unfinished Toronto version, or the final cut that released on two screens?

          • Aaron Peck

            I saw the cut that was released on Blu-ray, which I assume was the final cut that was released for a brief time in theaters.

  20. he has the number one film in the world right now. when should we discuss this?. september? in two weeks were going to hear how the harry potters suck. i’m hoping it great and the series goes out strong.

  21. Jane Morgan

    High-Def Digest, based on its blu-ray reviews, loves Michael Bay.

    Compare the Rotten Tomatoes ratings to the HDD movie scores.

    Transformers – RT 57% – HDD 3.0 Stars
    Bad Boys – RT 43% – HDD 3.5 Stars
    Armageddon – RT 40% – HDD 4.0 Stars
    The Rock – RT 67% – HDD 4.5 Stars

    There is no vast left-wing media conspiracy.

  22. Alex P.

    Honestly, I never knew of big budget movies recycling footage of previous films though I have seen this with cartoons and really low budget movies. Now I’m curious what other directors have done this. It be great if one of you guys wrote a blog of top movies with recycled footage. Keep up the good work HDD writers!

  23. Rinzler

    This is most likely the scene where the extra got her head sliced open when the cable ripped into her car, which is why he would have chosen to reuse footage that fit, not because of laziness. I remember sitting in the theater thinking, “this is where it happened.”. Tragic. 

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this movie have a tremendous number of car stunts in it from start to finish? I have still not seen any definitive evidence that THIS was the scene being filmed when the extra was wounded. All we have is speculation that it COULD have been the reason Bay recycled this footage.

      It’s also possible that she may have been injured while filming a completely different scene unrelated to this one.

  24. Jane Morgan

    The recycled footage in ‘Transformers’ was most likely a Spielberg decision.

    For ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ footage of the airplane flying over Nepal was taken from the 1973 version of ‘Lost Horizon’ and the establishing shot of 1930s Washington DC was from ‘The Hindenburg.’

  25. Sartozki

    Your friend Luke has exceptional photographic memory! But then, I didnt even remember that chase scene in TF3 until I saw the comparison video :S Still, no biggie, id rather rewatch the island than seeing transforming balls! 😛

  26. My conclusion is you have WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS. Yes the island, minus Scarlett Johansson sucked, but at least part of it went to a good cause.