Because clearly the only two options in the known universe are Michael Bay and William Shakespeare, right? And word to the wise, I don't really like Shakespeare. Unless it's Bill Shatner doing it and then I appreciate it ironically. I mean I watched that Joss Whedon version of "Much Ado About Nothing" last year and spent most of the movie wondering what the fuck they were talking about. I mean let's face it there's so much of Shakespeare that's dated these days. In many cases even the core concepts are dated like "A Merchant in Venice" which is basically a lot of anti-Semitism.
OK, so I'm not going out to watch Shakespeare anytime soon if I can help it. But again that doesn't mean Michael Bay is my only other option. That's the problem with the world today. People support crap, complain it's crap, and yet don't seem to realize there's an alternative that doesn't involve the Immortal Bard. By that I mean there's a difference between say X-Men Days of Future Past, which has a story (even if it's not entirely logical) and Transformers 4, that's just 3 hours of blowing shit up. The point being: action movies don't have to be dumb!
The problem is those people who don't care about the distinction. "It's an action movie, not Shakespeare!" That doesn't mean it can't have a mostly coherent plot. Or characters who are more than cardboard cutouts or racist stereotypes. Or women who do more than run around in their underwear.
This kind of stereotyping is a problem for those who write genre fiction. There's the idea that every sci-fi story has to involve spaceships or robots. Or every fantasy story has to involve dragons and magic. Or that every superhero story should be like the campy Batman show from the 60s and aimed at kids.
Anyway, don't just settle for the lowest common denominator--demand better! That's the only way you get better movies. I mean if Batman & Robin hadn't been such a dismal failure we'd probably still think superhero movies are just cheesy 2-hour toy commercials.
And here's your Shakespeare: