When you put shots from West Side Story back to back with his work, you can feel the similarities.

当你把《西区故事》中的镜头与他的作品并排放在一起时，你就能感觉到它们的相似之处。

I think Bay's goal is to create what he thinks are good shots and connect them with what he thinks are good cuts.

我认为迈克尔·贝的目标是拍摄他认为好的镜头，并将它们与他认为好的剪辑结合在一起。

If Howard Hawks defined a good movie as three good scenes and no bad ones, Michael Bay seems to think a good film is three thousand dynamic shots and no static ones.

如果说霍华德·霍克斯将一部好电影定义为三个好镜头且没有坏镜头，那么迈克尔·贝似乎认为一部好电影就是三千个动态镜头且没有静止画面。

Apart from West Side Story, Bay's biggest influence is actually other blockbusters.

除了《西区故事》，贝影响力最大的其实是其他商业大片。

He frequently borrows the same basic vocabularies and other sequence.

他经常借用相同的基本镜头语言和其他一系列镜头。

So something like this...

所以这样的镜头……

Becomes this.

变成了这样。

You'll notice the tight shots of the character become tighter.

你会注意到角色紧凑的镜头变得更紧凑了。

And the wide shots become wider.

广角镜头变得更广了。

Everything gets more layers of motion, but the basic vocabulary's the same.

所有画面的动作层次都更加丰富，但基本的镜头语言是相同的。

-I got him!

-我打到了！

-Great, kid!

-太棒了，孩子！

-Don't get cocky.

-别大意了。

And it's not just other people he borrows from.

他还不只是借用别人的镜头。

Bay cannibalizes himself just as much.

还会对自己的作品下手。

So this...

所以这一幕……

Becomes this.

变成了这样。

You'll notice every motion in the original shot.

注意到第一个镜头中的运动。

For instance, the camera turning counter-clockwise, while the bomb turns clockwise - it's just cranked up in this version.

摄影机在逆时针旋转，而炸弹则顺时针旋转——第二版只是速度变快了。

-Autobots, I'm in pursuit.

-博派们，他由我来对付。

So what is Bayhem?

所以，什么是贝炸流？

It's the use of movement, composition and fast editing to create a sense of epic scale.

它是指利用运动、构图和紧凑的剪辑来创造宏伟的画面。

Each individual shot feels huge, but also implies bigger things outside the frame.

每一个镜头都十分壮观，但也暗示着画面外更加壮观。

It stacks multiple layers of movement shot either on a very long lens or a very wide one.

迈克尔·贝会在以超长焦或超广角镜头拍摄，在其中叠加多层物体的运动。

It shows you a lot for just a moment and then takes it away.

在一瞬间展现很多东西，然后迅速切换画面。

You feel the overall motion, but no grasp of anything concrete.

你能感受到整体的运动，但没有把握任何实质性的内容。

And yet, it requires a lot of people and integration to do this.

然而，要做到这一点，需要大量的人力物力。

But it's basically a variation on the existing vocabulary of the action scene.

但它基本上是动作场面现有镜头语言的变体。

Individual shots are a little dirtier, a little shakier, more complex, few more layers.

单人镜头更杂乱，更不稳定，更复杂，层次更多。

Then you cut it together faster than the brain can register, but not faster than the eye can move.

然后把多个这样的镜头剪辑到一起，让画面的运动和转换比大脑接收信息的速度更快，只有眼睛还能勉强跟上。

It's not revolutionary, just the past with a bit of stank on it.

这不是革命性的变化，只是有点令人厌恶的换皮作品。

If you want to see a more etxreme version of similiar ideas, you can look at late-era Tony Scott.

如果你想看更极端的贝炸流，可以看看托尼·斯科特晚期的作品。

And if you wanna see a less cluttered version, you can look at animation.

如果想看不那么杂乱的版本，你可以看看动画。

Someone like Glen Keane.

像是格兰·基恩制作的动画。

This is way more legible than what Bay does, but the basic idea is the same: character, environment, many layers, one epic sweep.

他的作品画面比迈克尔·贝的要清晰得多，但基本理念是一样的：角色、环境、多个层次、一次史诗般的大动作。

The world feels huge.

让这个世界看起来十分宏大。

One of my favorite adaptations of the Michael Bay style is actually shrinking it down.

我最喜欢的一个迈克尔·贝风格的改编作品缩小了原本作品的画面规模。

Ironically, Bayhem - which seems to have developed from a kid blowing up his train set - is actually kind of charming when it's tiny.

具有讽刺意味的是，贝炸流——它似乎是由一个小孩炸开自己的模型火车组发展起来的——在缩小画面规模之后，实际上变得迷人起来。

Instead of blowing up the world, how about a small English town?

与其炸毁世界，不如炸毁一个英国小镇？

-Swan!

-天鹅！

But in the end, I think the popularity of this style is hugely important.

但归根结底，我认为这种风格的受欢迎程度是很值得思考的。

Whether we like it or not, the interesting thing here is that we are really visually sophisticated and totally visually illiterate.

不管我们喜不喜欢这种风格，有趣的点在于，我们能够接受复杂的视觉冲击，但也同时完全是视觉文盲。

We can process visual information at a speed that wasn't common before, but thinking through what an image means...

我们的眼睛可以以非同寻常的速度处理信息，但要说这些画面存在什么意义……

-This is not necessary!

-没必要这样！

Not so much.

好像也没什么意义。

And as Wernor Herzog put it:

正如维尔纳·赫尔佐格所说：

-You do not avert your eyes.

-你根本躲不开它。

-That's what's coming at us.

-它现在太热门了。

This might sound a little weird, but the person who loses the most here is actually Michael Bay.

这话可能听起来有点奇怪，但其实损失最大的人是迈克尔·贝自己。

He is a slave to his own eye.

他是自身视觉的奴隶。

He has a need to make every image dynamic, even when it runs contrary to the theme of his movie.

他要让每一个画面都充满活力，即使这与他电影的主题背道而驰。

-Some people just don't know a good thing when it's staring them in the face.

-有些人对美好的事物视而不见。

-It really is the simple things in life...

-这只是生活中简单的小事物……

Yeah, the little things, like a big house, a dock, a view of the water and a speed boat.

是的，一些小事物，比如一栋大房子，一个码头，一片海景和一艘快艇。

What happens when two great storytellers tackle this exact same theme?

让两个会讲故事的人诠释相同的情境又会如何?

-Heck, Norm, you know, we're doing pretty good.

-去他的，诺姆，你知道，我们过得挺好的。

-I love you, Margie.

我爱你，玛吉。

-I love you, Norm.

-我爱你，诺姆。

-Two more months.

-两个月之后。

-Two more months.

-两个月之后。