I agree. Bay is an F. Emmerich is only a D.

Bay's oft-offensive (and usually shitty) masturbatory spectacles are far more interesting than anything Emmerich has ever done.

I don't care for either of them, to be honest. Some of their movies are entertaining, but... I don't even feel compelled to consider which one is "better."

I really liked Stargate, despite it being cheesy... the mythological aspect is fun.

Ugh, after looking at the movies listed in this thread, Im just going to say that they both suck and leave it at that.

Wow tough question, by default I'm tempted to say Emmerich, but the way inwhich he gang raped Godzilla makes it kinda difficult to say he's better then any director even one as godawful as Bay. I'm gonna have to phone a friend on this one.

Emmerich, loved Stargate and ID4.

michael bay knows how to use farbfilters.

Bay.

The Island, The Rock, and Armageddon were FANTASTIC.

The Island sucked. Never before have action scenes been so boring.

I thought The Island was great. Bay's best and most entertaining movie.

I voted Emmerich. Bay may have a distinctive style, but that doesn't make him a competent director. Emmerich at least makes good films.

It's an uninspired THX 1138 rip-off with piss-poor action. Watch The Rock.

That's a "color filter" for you yanks.

Words, they do fail me

Emmerich:
Day after tomorrow: C
The Patriot: --
Godzilla: C+
ID4: B+
Universal soldier: B-
Stargate: --

Bay:
The Island: B+
Bad boys 2: C+
Armageddon: C+
Bad Boys: A-
Pearl Harbor: --
The Rock: A

Bay wins...

Bay wins.

Even with ID4 and the Patriot crapzilla single handedly desimates all chance Emmerich could have ever had.

Impossible.

Yeah, it's an "Whoever wins, we lose" situation, but I'd have to give it to Bay, for a few reasons. First of all, because Emmerich needs a close collaberator to just suck. (Yes, Bay was considered a protege of Bruckheimer, but Bruck is kind of a big picture guy who handles a billion films a year, and Bay has shown he can work--maybe even work better, outside the producer's sphere of influence) Secondly, there's more of an artistry to what Bay does. He's more of a director. Perhaps it's unfair to say Emmerich is a complete work-for-hire guy--but I seriously think he warrants as much of a comparison to Shawn Levy as he does Michael Bay. His films succeed more on the idea of an irresistable high concept than any work he puts forth. Mel Gibson is a revolutionary war hero on Fourth of July Weekend! An alien spaceship blows up the Whitehouse! All weather goes crazy and the statue of liberty is frozen! I'll admit, when Bay specifically tried to work in this wheelhouse, he failed miserably with Pearl Harbor. But his works are more inventive--and more gloriously sinister than anything Emmerich has done. To think Emmerich has a better body of work is like thinking Cinderella Man is better than Kill Bill. It's possible--and amongst your parents maybe even sensical. But it indicates predisposition towards bland.

So if an epic high concept is enough to sell a movie, why wasn't The Core a huge hit? Or all the many other epic high concept movies that flopped? And how exactly is "Mel Gibson is a revolutionary hero!" a high concept with big, immediate appeal?

Also Emmerich did "The Day After Tomorrow" without Devlin and it became a massive hit and had better reviews than any Bay movie ever besides The Rock. How can you claim that Emmerich can't survive without his past producer buddy Devlin?

Also the only movie that Bay has done without Bruckheimer was both a commercial and critical disaster, yet you claim that he can work alone, but Emmerich can't?

Also Emmerich has co-written all of his movies, Bay has written none of his. An yet you think that Emmerich more of a work-for-hire guy than Bay, despite the fact the creates his own stories for his movies?

Emmerich is both commercially and critically a more succesful filmmaker.

Now whether you like either Bay or Emmerich more is a question of taste. Emmerich is certainly a more old-fashioned filmmaker. "Bland" you might say. I say that he makes movies that DON'T look like sunglasses commercials. While he shares Bay's attraction to things that are "cool", he also is concerned about the drama and suspense - Something that doesn't really interest Bay.

I'm not a Bay hater, since I like most of his movies. But I just find your arguments illogical, and not very consistent.

Watching Mel Gibson in the Patriot reminded me of the Simpsons episode with Mel where he dismembers people in Congress especially the scene in the PAtriot where Mel gets down to his knees when the villian was about to stab him

The Core was high-concept, but it didn't have a particularly compelling hook. I'm not saying it's not so much the high concept themselves that's bothersome about the movies...I'm saying the movies he comes up with have pretty irresisitable concepts, and he fails to deliver on them in any particular manner. And I didn't say he was "work for hire"--I simply suggested his efforts behind the camera kind of look like them, at least compared to Bay. Though I don't think his screenplay efforts were labors of love. He's a double threat, but having the combined powers of Paul Anderson and Akiva Goldsman is only mildy impressive. And I don't think his work is signifigantly more well-reviewed than Bay's. They're more or less in the same range on Rotten Tomatoes.

And there's something to be said about an old school Hollywood style--but when you're making movies about meteors and giant lizards or whatever subjects these two handle that aren't written that well anyways, well it might as well have that MTV look to it. I mean, it's not like one comes out of The Day After Tomrrow genuinely feeling affected or compelled by any of the human interest stories. Ultimately both create cardboard characters that are incidental the the special effects shows. Bay creates better special effects shows...more inventive ones. I don't think either make films that are partcularly good. I come away satisfied with neither. But in Bay's case, I at least come out simply intrigued. Maybe frustrated that if this guy came down from the clouds from which he thinks he was conceived, he could make actually something good. And ulitmately, I think the next Scorcese or Tarentino could look at his works, and his techniques, and maybe impliment them into something good. For all his unbridled arrogance, in the long run his efforts will probably lead to something in the medium of film.

Emmerich. Independence Day is better than anything Michael Bay is biologically capable of conjuring up.