According to the rules of English grammar, you can make infinitely long sequences of noun adjuncts.
Your examples are idiomatic, and could even be lengthened by adding more attributive nouns:
- a Michael Bay film festival
- a Michael Bay film watching party
- a Michael Bay blockbuster film watching party
- a Michael Bay blockbuster film watching party analysis
As you can probably see, when the phrases get longer, they're more likely to be misunderstood. In that last example, you have to read eight words before you discover what kind of activity is being described (an analysis, not a party, or a film, or a film maker).
While the language's grammar permits such phrases, they tend to be rare because there are usually better ways of conveying the same information. For example, this is a headline that was published by BBC News: "Dawlish pub car park cliff plunge man rescued." That sentences uses six nouns that all modify "man." Newspapers like this kind of phrasing because it's compact, but for normal speech, it would be much preferred to say, "Emergency medical technicians rescued a man whose car plunged off of the cliff at the edge of a Dawlish pub's parking lot."
Knowing the "rule" - that you can chain together attributive nouns - is helpful, but whatever rule exists cannot tell you whether a specific attributive noun chain is idiomatic. As we've seen, length is one consideration, but there's no rule about that - often times a single attributive noun is less idiomatic than the adjectival version. For example, "spine surgery" is more common than "spinal surgery," but "spine cord" is so uncommon, it will sound wrong (it's "spinal cord").
Unfortunately, the only way to know which phrasing is "correct" is to listen to and read a lot of English.