Nerd rage over the Transformers lore aside, what was so bad about those movies that you consider the director poisonous?
He's okay with movies that don't have decades worth of lore to work with. And even then, his movies look more like excuses to blow stuff up, which in itself wouldn't be so bad if he didn't try to force a plot down your throat alongside it.
An action/sci-fi movie where the main focus is on the effects? Oh, the blasphemy! We need more psychological sci-fi thrillers taking place inside spaceships. They tend to be popular.
Guys, this smells a lot like nerd rage to me. I get that Michael Bay sort of **** up the lore with his adaptation of Transformers, but that's why they call it an adaptation. Imagine how unbelievably cheesy and confusing a live action movie of Transformers would be to the average movie-goer if it followed the lore to the letter? I mean, how would you even go about condensing decades worth of lore into one, two or three movies?
I think he did an excellent job of adapting the franchise to the live action scene. He may have screwed up decades of lore in the process, but considering the three first movies made a $2 billion profit, I'm guessing people didn't mind it too much. And Roger Ebert may disagree with me here, but most people watch action/sci-fi movies for the action and the sci-fi, not the plot. Look at Avatar. Pocahontas in space and it still made a profit in the billions.