As someone else said, the "kids these days" dimension isn't new. There have been self-indulgent films that used technical devices and audience manipulation as a creative crutch for a long time, probably as long as there have been films; those of us of a Certain Age may remember the shamelessly lowbrow disaster films of Irwin Allen, for instance, clearly as great a sinner against filmic intellectual purity as Bay is.
But!---don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Back in my longhair metalhead days in the 1980s, I remember having my mind blown by an article about rap by bassist Billy Sheehan, in which he basically said "listen to that synth bass, which the genre uses because it's mechanically tight and can do that resonant deep boom in your gut---now quit complaining about it and go find a way to make YOUR bass that tight and deep!"
Mutatis mutandis, there's a reason people use devices as creative crutches; it's because those devices have a certain predictable effect, and it should ALWAYS be possible to discard the "crutch" aspect but retain the technique. As a filmmaker, don't say "confusing fast shots are stupid"; note what happens when confusing fast shots are used heavily, and set that knowledge aside for the next time you need it (say, if the camera is taking the viewpoint of a drunk in a bar fight).
By the way, those who really don't like the flash-and-effects gestalt should take a look at the work of the "Dogme 95" filmmakers. Lars von Trier is the best known, and he's a jerk whom I think it's reasonable to write off for reasons either outside or inside his work, but the others have done some interesting stuff. I particularly liked Kristian Levring's _The King Is Alive_.
ObAPUG: I think the Dogme manifesto might require shooting on film. Does that make me on-topic?
-NT
.
