PDA

View Full Version : Transformers 4 Rumours and News Thread.


inflatable dalek
2011-10-18, 07:48 PM
As Digital Spy has what seems to be the first (possibly entirely fictitious) report up on plans for the next movie/s I thought a thread to collect all these things together as they come along over the next few years would be a good idea:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a346104/steven-spielberg-michael-bay-in-talks-for-transformers-4-5.html

So, they're at least looking into getting Bay back directing, hardly surprising considering the gonzo boxoffice, and may film the next two back to back. Frankly if the Statham thing is even remotely true I can't see him playing the main lead (which I can see being a more direct Sam substitute), maybe a Lennox style character.

Paul053
2011-10-18, 07:52 PM
Just no Daniel, please.

Cliffjumper
2011-10-18, 08:16 PM
Apparently they're doing an animated G1 remake, no flames on Prime, Welker as gun Megatron, Ironhide as a twat and so on. They've sat down and looked at the box-office, merchandise sales and so on of the first three and realised that the 200 lunatics violently complaining the whole time were right all along.

Sades
2011-10-18, 08:22 PM
I WANT BW

Blackjack
2011-10-19, 01:53 AM
Tut-tut, spoiler tags people. We don't want to spoil it for those who don't want to be spoiled.

praetorian
2011-10-19, 09:50 PM
This part debunked. (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/10/18/transformers-jason-statham-rumors/)

This part too. (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?10088-Updated-Paramount-eyes-back-to-back-Transformers-shoots&p=195150&viewfull=1#post195150)

HHouser
2011-10-19, 11:21 PM
Honestly I think they should stop while they're ahead. Yes we would love to see more but the rest of the world is declaring "no more". Even with the 1 billion gross sells, how much of that was people seeing it more than once. Just look around, anyone can see that people are getting burned out. I saw the movie on opening day and there were still plenty of empty seats and this wasn't no small theater either. It was downtown in a big city. The "shock and awe" is no longer there and to most people it's just another sequel.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-20, 07:37 AM
To be honest, I don't think there's enough dedicated Transformers fans who will go see each film multiple times to account for a billion dollars. And even if that is somehow mostly down to repeat business, I don't think Paramount will mind if it keeps bringing the money in, even if it's just entirely down to Cliffy going to see the film 10,000,000,000,000 times looking for that elusive Jolt cameo. I think it'll take a movie just doing "OK" at best for them to considering resting the franchise for now.

Blackjack
2011-10-20, 09:08 AM
As of today Dark of the Moon ranks fourth in international box office, beating out franchises like Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and all but the last of the Harry Potter movies.

It's only behind Avatar, Titanic and HP8 in terms of the income to the creators.

Unless that's all Cliffy's repeat viewings, I doubt the audience has burnt out yet. Autobot victory Autobot victory!

Cliffjumper
2011-10-20, 01:35 PM
I only saw it at the cinema once.

But yeh, DotM took a truly stupid amount of money, inflation adjusted or not. TBH, I think Plan A for Paramount is going to be make a film as much like the first three as possible. The 'repeat viewings' thing is irrelevant - let's say it accounts for 25% of tickets or something just for the sake of it, what's to say that 25% won't be seeing the fourth one twice?

Even the reviews were kinder for DotM - the critics had ran out of bitter insults to hurl at Bay, if nothing else.

I think TF is more immune to franchise burn-out than a lot of stuff as well, because in terms of mainstream stuff that's actually likely to be made into films, it's out by itself. Superhero movies overlap on a lot of ground, but there's only going to be one giant transforming robot movie every 2-3 years. 95% of people who watch the things get their ticket, watch their film and have very little to do with Transformers until the next one comes along.

praetorian
2011-10-20, 02:53 PM
What about a set of prequels? Perhaps a tie-in with the upcoming "'Fall of Cybertron" game? Prime in his prime. Megatron before he became a bum sleeping against a Chicago building.

However, if we assume that Cybertron has no atmosphere, there can't be explosions of fire. Plenty of wreckage, though.

Cliffjumper
2011-10-20, 03:44 PM
A set of prequels for a trio of mondo successful science fantasy action films? What could possibly go wrong?

Why tie into a computer game a fair percentage of the audience won't ever play? Why set a film on ancient Cybertron when much of the films' success has been down to them being set on present-day Earth?

Transformers + Earth = more than 8000 people interested, especially if you throw 'present day' and 'turn into realistic vehicles audiences can actually relate to' into the mix.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-20, 07:16 PM
Plus without Earth/any humans it would effectively be a cartoon film rather than a live action one, and if they were going to go down that road they might as well do a Prime tie in straight to DVD feature.

Blackjack
2011-10-23, 04:11 AM
I don't believe in movies tying in for anything, to be honest. Movies are watched by a large percentage of people out there, whereas stuff like games and comics are only played by the fanbase.

I mean, I don't think more than 10% of the people who watched the live action movies actually read IDW comics or the tie-in games.

Really I think any movies without humans would effectively kill off half of the general mainstream movie-watchers.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-23, 04:20 AM
I don't believe in movies tying in for anything, to be honest. Movies are watched by a large percentage of people out there, whereas stuff like games and comics are only played by the fanbase.

Indeed, and for all that comic and book tie in publishers (for most films that have them, not just Transformers) like to promote their works as essential reading to get full enjoyment from the cinema experience I don't think that has ever really been the case, the film sets the agenda and does its own thing and any and all spin offs have to keep pace with it, not the other way round.

The Star Trek Countdown comic is a good example, heavily pushed as the "Official Prequel" it's a enjoyable enough, if throwaway, read but not only does it not tell you anything you need to know that isn't covered by the film itself in about two lines there's various ideas in it that are clearly the result of working from an earlier script which don't gel with the final film, such as Spock and Nero knowing each other before the disaster and there being a lengthy gap between the destruction of Romulus and Nero going back after Spock (a YMMV one is the idea Nero's ship is retrofitted with Borg technology, I think in the film itself it's not supposed to be anything more than the product of a century later, I can't take Kirk's Enterprise as withstanding Borg weapons even for a second, that's the sort of Voyager crap this movie needed to leave well behind).

And that's with the writers of the film working directly on the comic as well, it's hardly surprising the IDW Bayverse tie ins, which never seem to have been given very much access to Paramount's plans despite grand claims in the early days, pretty much don't have any bearing whatsoever on what you need to know before seeing the film.

Cliffjumper
2011-10-23, 05:51 AM
The IDW Movie comics are hilarious - one of the prequels for DotM saw them butcher the supporting cast when they twigged that Knock Out and DUNE RUNNER weren't going to be in the film, and Paramount totally trolled them with Shockwave to boot (and DW rip-off Shockwave as the icing on the cake). While John Barber seems to have a better handle on it than his forbears, the comics still screw anyone who has been loyally reading them over the second there's a sniff of some cinema trickle-down cash for IDW. It's pretty disrespectful to the 7000 people who buy the comic that they get ****ed every two years in the hope that another 200-300 people walk out of the cinema going "Wow, I loved that film, I wonder if there's a badly drawn comic that completely misses the tone of it out?".

LKW
2011-10-23, 07:47 AM
For me a prequel makes more sense as its hard to see a sequel when they've KILLED EVERY SINGLE DAMN DECEPTICON (right?).

(For the record, I did like DOTM - bay even seems to have escaped his blue-and-orage obsession - but it really felt like an end of a franchise to me.)

Cliffjumper
2011-10-23, 12:19 PM
They killed every named Decepticon on Earth. Actually, DotM arguably had the highest Decepticon survival rate - we never see anything done about all the little groups who launch pillars around the world. The five named ones all die, but Megatron and Starscream especially would be a bit played-out in any TF4 - especially as the Fallen and Sentinel have proved that the films can do beaucoup box office without the main villain being named after a bad guy from a 1980s cartoon.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single decent prequel in pretty much any medium (excluding the odd flashback from a 'present day' title or show); maybe the book of the Hobbit and CS Lewis' Magician's Nephew, but not a huge amount else. There are probably a couple I've forgotten, but TBH the amount of crap prequels there've been outweigh them. I'm also struggling to think of any that have done box office that wasn't, at best, mildly underwhelming.

Like I've said here and elsewhere, a massive, massive amount of non-fan interest (i.e. close enough to all the ticket sales as a percentage to effectively be everyone; if fandom was to get together enough to boycott one of these things it would make next to zero difference to the box office) is down to the present day setting and the human characters. People like the way (close to) everyday road cars appear and turn into robots. Also, non-fans like the humans - talk to someone about the films and they're as likely to go on about Shia LeBeouf or Josh Duhamel as they are about Ratchet or Soundwave. Sure, they like the robots and the effects, but it's not the whole deal for them.

TBH, in a lot of ways I agree - it's pretty boring for a metal shape on a metal background to turn into a robot; there's nothing being done there that hasn't been done in cartoon or CGI form years ago. The most awesome bits of the films for me have been when the TFs interact with 'real' objects - the show-off Ironhide transformation at the start of RotF, Prime thumping Megatron with a tree, Bumblebee and Barricade leathering each other into bits of a power station, Shockwave striding around Chicago. That's what films can do for Transformers - why junk that in favour of something TF:Prime could do?

Transformers on Cybertron, especially olden days stuff, has only ever been popular with fans. Origin stuff in general is the same, which is why most of the superhero films get it out of the way with relative alacrity and get on with having a main villain for most of the running time.

No, I think the only realistic options are either sequel or reboot, and I think it's too soon for the latter - added onto which I don't really see the need (having a new Megatron, Prime and Bumblebee who would, I expect, look and act much the same as the Bay versions would be pointless and confusing). All they need is for another bunch of Decepticons to descend on Earth for some reason, and as long as there are Autobots there that won't be hard to come up with. The name recognition value of the Decepticons is basically irrelevant; really the only thing having Shockwave for DotM acheived was to allow Bay to punk newstards in a hilarious fashion (not much sneering about the disinformation campaign this time, is there?).

The main questions will be a) how successfully any new director apes Bay and b) how much the humans click with general audiences. For b) it's worth considering they picked Fox and LeBeouf up at just the right time, too.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-23, 08:31 PM
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single decent prequel in pretty much any medium (excluding the odd flashback from a 'present day' title or show); maybe the book of the Hobbit and CS Lewis' Magician's Nephew, but not a huge amount else. There are probably a couple I've forgotten, but TBH the amount of crap prequels there've been outweigh them. I'm also struggling to think of any that have done box office that wasn't, at best, mildly underwhelming.


The last Star Trek film? Which managed some sort of super bonus by being both a prequel and a reboot all in one package.

But yeah, the only way there's even a chance of a reboot is if there's a lengthy gap of more than, say, four years before the next one for some reason.

Cliffjumper
2011-10-23, 09:19 PM
Point taken with Trek (though I'd say its' prequel bits took a back seat to its' reboot bits as far as casual audiences went). It's probably the exception that proves the rule, though, and benefits from being a prequel that largely does the same sort of thing Trek's always done.

I can see the Hobbit doing alright too, but again because it'll cover the same sort of ground as LotR (tenner says a lot of the lighter stuff from the first half of the book disappears and fifty percent of the run time is devoted to the Battle of the Five Armies).

However, I don't think either would prove much of a guideline for a TF prequel; TBH the main reason the Hobbit's being made is because no-one's ever finished reading the Silmarillion and there'd be a war if they simply came up with their own Lord of the Rings 4.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-24, 06:42 AM
Since yesterday I've also remembered X-Men: First Class (smaller box office than Last Stand but still generally well recieved) and the two Paranormal Activity sequels (each of which had has increased on their predecessors opening and have gone down well with fans).

I would however suggest it might be telling that of those three examples, it's only really the X-Men movie that's heavily promoted itself as a prequel (with the McKellan and Stewart narrated trailers. Though I'm not sure how the 60's setting is reconcible with the "Near Future" of the originals unless Cyclops was 70 years old in those).

Technically Temple of Doom should count as a popular and successful prequel but in typical Lucas style it probably counts more as a failure, simply because how many people have seen it over the years without ever even realising it's supposed to be set before Raiders...? I don't think I realised until the mid 90's when Lucas had that odd moment where he tired to pretend there were 30 odd Jones films by editing Young Indy TV episodes together and putting them out along with the videos in boxes numbered in chronological order (though somewhat thankfully I don't think they managed to release all of them over here. Did anyone even watch the free Young tape that came with the video boxset of the "proper" films?).

And I still moved Temple to its proper place in the box regardless of the numbers no longer lining up, if nothing else the call back to the gun scene in the first one makes much more sense when watched release way round.


However, I don't think either would prove much of a guideline for a TF prequel; TBH the main reason the Hobbit's being made is because no-one's ever finished reading the Silmarillion and there'd be a war if they simply came up with their own Lord of the Rings 4.

I do think the Trek film are pertinent in that they're Paramounts other "Big" SF Movie franchise (possibly even their biggest movie series full stop? Mission Impossible is the only other one that comes close and that's got less than half as many films) and they'll probably look to that and its success and failures when considering what to do with Transformers.

EDIT: And what are the two Trek films that are most popular outside of fandom? IV and XI, the ones that play the comedy the most broadly. That coupled with the prior Bay success is more than enough reason for Paramount not to want a serious full on war movie Transformers film.

Blackjack
2011-10-24, 01:39 PM
Probably I'm a wee bit too late to jump on the bandwagon, but here's my thoughts:

A prequel on Cybertron, without humans, would be disastrous. Even almost-fully-CGI movies that are successful, like, oh, take James Cameron's Avatar, had humans in it, with colourful backgrounds and alien animals that vaguely resemble dinosaurs and panthers and horses that we can relate to.

While it might, might make sense in a story prospect, it is hardly very lucrative for a movie. After all, like Cliffy said, if it's not going to have humans in it it's hardly going to be live-action anymore, right? Again, metal robots on metal backgrounds... meh. Just meh. I mean, the fandom would lap it up, but it would fail badly in the box offices.

The appeal of the movieverse to me is that how the Transformers looked so real and blend in so seamlessly with the suburbans, with the highway, with Chicago, with the desert and so on and so forth. Things like Dino whipping Hatchet onto another car, or Optimus whacking Megatron with a tree, or Demolishor running around the streets of Shanghai, or Driller drilling through that building, or the Autobots hiding around a home... it's these things that struck such a chord with the general audience, that they look real.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who watches Transformers just for a fun action movie with awesome CG effects. How real would they look if everything else was metal metal metal metal? How boring would it be?

Star Wars prequels are quite rubbish, and as someone who watched the prequels before the sequels, well, I was like WTF. The prequels were heavy on CG but not much on acting... Anakin's expression was rubbish. And we're supposed to relate the prequel's Anakin to the Darth Vader in the original trilogy? Mindscrew.

X-Men first class (and Wolverine as well, though while I liked it I know many people don't) is so obvious as a prequel, and a pretty fun one but that's mostly because they already have a story to work out with, and, lest we forget, it still has humans and stuff.

Star Trek is a prequel? I thought it was a reboot, albeit in a way that sort-of ties it in to prior stuff. Although since the only Trek material I've watched is the new movie and about halfway through Wrath of Khan, I'm hardly an expert of the franchise. I do like the new movie, it's fun.

numbat
2011-10-24, 06:28 PM
Temple of Doom was a prequel?????

As to Trek, I felt it was a reboot that tied into the existing Trek-verse to appease fans more than anything else (and did a nice job too!).

Star Wars? Well, I think the issue there lies not with the actors, but with the director - George Lucas really should not be allowed to direct his own films. I mean, come on, who else could coax a wooden performance from Samuel L. Jackson? Star Wars was as poor as the prequel trilogy - the difference was it was something new and wonderful in the eyes of the audience. Fortunately, Lucas did not direct Empire or Jedi.

(And I loved X-Men: First Class - way better than any of the previous X-Men films I thought. Better focus on the human element, great acting... Yup. Loved it! Screw continuity.)

A prequel to Transformers? Well, I really have no interest in a CG Cybertron-based film (I say 'no' but, well, I'd still enjoy the robots really...). What I love about the live action films is the way they have fun with the whole concept and blend it with pop culture - it's a laugh. It's also why they've been so successful. You'd lose that with a robot-based prequel. Still, they did mix in a lot of hints at historic connections with Transformers and humans, so a historic option is not out of the question - still, I think it'd be poor.

I liked the ending of DOTM. I'd be happy enough if they left it there, while on a high. It'd be a shame if it fell the same was as Jurassic Park or Aliens and Predator (through Aliens Vs Predator films, and Predators). If they can think of a genuinely good plot to take things forward, that would be cool, but, otherwise, the best thing they can do for the fans is to drop it while we're going good.

inflatable dalek
2011-10-24, 07:55 PM
Star Trek is a prequel? I thought it was a reboot, albeit in a way that sort-of ties it in to prior stuff. Although since the only Trek material I've watched is the new movie and about halfway through Wrath of Khan, I'm hardly an expert of the franchise. I do like the new movie, it's fun.

The new film was basically the Trek version of Target:2006/Time Wars if Galvatron was successful, Spock Prime and Nero being from the "present" of the original history is enough to make it at least a partial prequel. Not that the film dwells on it.

Temple of Doom was a prequel?????

Yeah, it set something like a couple of years earlier, apparently because they didn't want Nazi's in it. A friend of mine does have a theory the film shows Indy going from being a very mercenary and uncaring character to the more rounded basically good man seen in Raiders, but that's a bit dubious to me.

numbat
2011-10-24, 08:01 PM
Regardless of contrived chronology, Temple of Doom is a crackingfilm. :-)

inflatable dalek
2011-10-24, 08:04 PM
Regardless of contrived chronology, Temple of Doom is a crackingfilm. :-)

Fully agreed, it seems to be the least popular over all but I love it for being the only one of the sequels to not have exactly the same plot as the first one (complete with the problem that the villain ends up getting killed by what they're after meaning Indy might as well have let them get on with it). Bloody terrifying as well, and that's with the uncut version still never having been released in the UK.

Vin Ghostal
2011-10-25, 05:53 PM
Oh god, the Temple of Doom lovers are coming out of the woodwork.

Honestly, I don't really care how bad future installments of Transformers may get. I just want as many of them as I can get while they've still got momentum and popular relevance.

Bountyhunter
2011-12-09, 06:47 PM
So it looks like Bay is back. Shia is out. There are plenty of decepticons left. Astrotrain, Thundercracker, Skywarp, Motormaster and the stunticons, Galvatron, Cyclonus, Predaking, the insecticons, Blitzwing, Starscream's ghost just to name a few. Also Unicron.

Plenty of stories left to tell. I am kinda excited to see what they come up with.

Oh and Galvatron does not have to be Megatron resurrected.

One last thing I did enjoy Temple of Doom. It was a good prequel.

Firestrider57
2012-01-13, 02:52 PM
All I can say is that after watching all three TF movies, I think it's time to shut the book. I thought that's what they did with DOTM. Ironhide, Sentinel, Megs, Starscream are all dead. It is still possible to hand off the mantle to Roddy and UM, but we waited most of a decade to even see the live action movies. To kill off Prime in a deathmatch with a resurrected Megs or an overpowered Galvatron might be good movie making, but really, we watched Prime die already. We watched him get dismembered, and even beat his nemesis with only one arm. Nothing more to see.
I would probably have most of the fanbase behind me when I say that I wouldn't want to see Prime die again, but here are some concepts that could be introduced if (sigh) there is a new sequel:

1) Dinobots-- Oh , yeah, Bay hates'em.
2. The remake of dead Megs , Starscream and the 20,000 dead Deceps from DOTM become Cyclonus, Scourge, the Sweeps and other mindless, faceless minions.
3. The Autobot cars missed in all three of the live action movies-- namely Prowl, Tracks, Hot Rod, Smokescreen, Blue Streak , Blurr, Kup , and Sunstreaker.
4. OMEGA SUPREME, Trypticon and Menosaur.
5. NO Unicron, Please. He's just too big to be realistic.

Needless to say, if there is a 4th movie, given the current aesthetics of the characters, the fans will go away and what was predicted about Bay would come true-- He will kill Transformers.

Cliffjumper
2012-01-13, 03:07 PM
I think Hasbro have realised at long last that Rodimus, Galvatron, Cyclonus and co - regardless of how popular some of them are now in the fandom - were deeply unpopular with the wider public. TF:TM was the first real disaster in the G1 line and the brand took over a decade to recover from it. They're highly unlikely to start raiding it for a new direction - Optimus especially is there to stay as Hasbro have realised the character's a genuine icon rather than just another guy who happens to be leader. Even Galvatron's only been wheeled out for main lines because the name on boxes will sell to more kids than "Megatron recolour".

The most reference there'll be to the '86 movie in TF4 would be if a couple of the new background Autobots are called Kup and Rodimus, or a couple of Decepticons get name-checked as Cyclonus and Scourge (and they'll likely be two random heavies rather than reanimated bits of Crankcase and Grindor).


That said, and RiD-style Scourge might provide an interesting main villain, in line with the past two films having hooked out minor non-toy characters and done something more interesting with the concepts.

inflatable dalek
2012-01-13, 03:24 PM
And, even if people don't like the films, it's hard to say they're the "Death" of Transformers. As well as their mind-boggling box office grosses (and I doubt even the most optimistic of us five years ago would have expected the fourth most successful film of all time to be a TF one) we've had two cartoon that have been better received by fans, a third one to keep the little kiddies happy, a wider and more diverse number of toys than have been on sale at the same time previously, the reasonably successful relaunch of the books and a new Panini sticker album. It's only the comics that have been carrying on in the same half hearted way as before the films (though hopefully that'll change this year), and we still have had Last Stand of the Wreckers in that time.

Basically, the success of the films has seen something for everyone, even if it's just the fancy new DVD's of the old shows that have been put out to tie in with the pictures. Plus there's the bonus of an entirely new generation of fans being created, fresh blood is what every fandom need regular injections of and in ten or 15 years we'll see a lot of people who grew up with these films signing up to whatever futuristic brain implants have replaced message boards and bemoaning that Transformers 26 doesn't have any of the classic characters like Barricade in it (unless us old farts wind up scaring them off with the "Get off our land" attitude).

It's a great time to be a fan regardless of what you think of the films because there's so much else to enjoy. It won't last of course, all franchises have their good and bad times, and I suspect in a few years we'll all be looking back on this period nostalgically.

It's much like Who fans complaining that Moffet has destroyed the program forever or Trekies bemoaning that Abrahms has done the same, when what they basically mean is they don't like the current most popular form of their favourite thing. Which isn't the same thing (though I wish it were after that last Who Christmas special. I'm actually baffled that every non-fan I've talked to has gone on about how they were crying at the end. I may be dead inside...).

EDIT:
That said, and RiD-style Scourge might provide an interesting main villain, in line with the past two films having hooked out minor non-toy characters and done something more interesting with the concepts.

I think you'll find RID Scourge was a toy character. And hardly a minor one.


Don't like it when it's done to you do you, Eh?

Cliffjumper
2012-01-13, 03:40 PM
Meant more that the movie guys aren't stuck to the same old "Hey, we've used the guys from Seasons 1-2, now the only obvious candidates are from Season 3!" mindset some people seem to think they are, though the phrasing was clumsy. I would argue, though, that RiD Scourge is a relatively minor character in the grand scheme we're talking about, being restricted to about half of a moderately successful cartoon.

inflatable dalek
2012-01-13, 03:47 PM
Meant more that the movie guys aren't stuck to the same old "Hey, we've used the guys from Seasons 1-2, now the only obvious candidates are from Season 3!" mindset some people seem to think they are, though the phrasing was clumsy. I would argue, though, that RiD Scourge is a relatively minor character in the grand scheme we're talking about, being restricted to about half of a moderately successful cartoon.

You can't argue with the use of both bold and italics. It's unheard of!

OK, it's probably been a bit to long since the last time you did it for it to work as an ironic call back, but best served cold and all that.

I actually would be surprised if Megatron wound up staying dead. Considering it wouldn't have been that hard to do the last two films without him it seems someone just likes having him around for the name recognition whilst the more obscure actual villain just gets on with it.

Jaynz
2012-01-13, 08:11 PM
Meant more that the movie guys aren't stuck to the same old "Hey, we've used the guys from Seasons 1-2, now the only obvious candidates are from Season 3!" mindset some people seem to think they are...

Yeah, remember that G1 Episode where Mudflap and Jolt did stuff?

Or how great Barricade was in "More than Meets the Eye" and everyone just HAD to have his toy?

Cliffjumper
2012-01-13, 08:50 PM
Mmm, you'd think after those (and all the other huge dissimilarities) people would've clicked that they're not remaking G1 after three films.

I'd actually be sort-of curious to see how they handled Unicron, though. I would suspect that the action film format would mean they'd junk a lot of the mythical stuff (which, I find, is what's really tedious about more recent returns - all the heralds and acolytes and that sort of crap; it's basically the old 1980s Marvel stuff stretched out ever further and with ever-more disappointing execution), which would soften the blow - something like the infodump Jetfire gives in RotF. Still not entirely sure how they'd manage the scale side of things, but chances are it'd be a radically different take, which could be interesting.

Got a feeling DotM's "Cybertron nearly swallowing Earth" bit might have been as close to it as they plan to get. I'd say they're unlikely to recycle visuals, but then there was the ill-advised decision to put the big battle in RotF in what looked like exactly the same bit of desert they used for Scorponok's scene in the first one.

Denyer
2012-01-13, 09:52 PM
Or how great Barricade was in "More than Meets the Eye" and everyone just HAD to have his toy?
Best thing in it...

numbat
2012-01-15, 12:00 AM
I love Dark of the Moon. It's the live action Transformers film I always wanted. The first 2007 film was an amazing introduction, and Revenge of the Fallen had superb set-pieces if no coherent plot, but only DOTM really pulled everything together and delivered. Come on, a teacup smashes on Shockwave's head! Awesome!

DOTM also gives really good closure, and would be the perfect ending point for the live action films, and it'd be a shame to see them continue and become increasingly poor as is apt to happen.

That said, if they came up with a good script, I'd be interested (that'll sell it ti 'em - an audience of one fanboy!).

I don't want Megatron back - I liked his attrition and end. Galvatron would be fun, but I love the idea of RID Scourge. I think he's the best villain in Transformers after Megatron, and he's chronically underused. I really can't see how Unicron could be done in a believable way, but would be well up for seeing how the concept could be tackled. I'm not precious - I like the radical takes on characters in the live action films, and would like to see more. The designs are my favourites of all, and I've been following Transformers since the start of G1.

I don't agree that concepts for a fourth film should avoid the G1 movie. While that. May not have gone down well at the time it has become entrenched in modern pop culture, so could offer some material for a new film. Still, I'd prefer Optimus and RID Scourge. That would (could) rock.

Warcry
2012-01-15, 05:26 PM
I think Hasbro have realised at long last that Rodimus, Galvatron, Cyclonus and co - regardless of how popular some of them are now in the fandom - were deeply unpopular with the wider public.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Killing Optimus is what was unpopular, and whatever followed was doomed from the start. I doubt the characters had much to do with it, and the non-fans I know don't even remember any of them other than maybe Hot Rod (who actually seems to be remembered in a good light most of the time). Hasbro has learned their lesson, and they know better than to let the filmmakers kill off either of their best-selling characters for real. The odds of Optimus or Bumblebee dying in the next movie are practically zero, and it'll stay that way until the kids stop buying their toys. But if they want to add another major character (and after killing off the #3 Autobot in Ironhide, they might) Hot Rod would be one of the most likely suspects. He's become fairly recognizable again due to Hasbro putting out a fair number of new toys, and a reckless young punk is the sort of character that's right up Bay's alley.

Although with all this talk of RiD, if Ultra Magnus shows up I'd love for him to be a jealous asshole trying to steal the Matrix from Prime... :glance:

I'm a bit nervous about TF4, honestly, because action movie sequels always try to top the last release and...well, how do you top DOTM? I'm not sure you can, honestly. Unicron, like Cliffy said, isn't all that different from Cybertron coming through. And I'm not sure that another giant Decepticon invasion would be able to top the one in DOTM, either. And ROTF had the combiner angle covered, along with super-giant robots in general. So where do you go from here?

Oh, and I agree with the people who don't want Megatron back. He was completely useless in the last two movies, and in retrospect I would have been happier if they'd let him stay dead after the first movie. He wasn't the lead villain, and Starscream, Soundwave and Shockwave had all the important henchmen roles sewn up. Honestly it felt like they only brought him back because the higher-ups decided that Megatron had to be in every Transformers movie they made.

Cliffjumper
2012-01-15, 06:01 PM
Yeh, Megatron's been used up a bit through the last two films using him as a dummy villain, if you like. In DotM especially he's just there so Sentinel's betrayal packs some sort of punch. I think big-name recognition for the Decepticons isn't really a factor; Shockwave was only really included for diversion value. They're certainly not going to jump through too many hoops to resurrect any of them.

Hot Rod I'll admit, but personality-wise I'm not sure he'd stand out amongst the Autobots - I'm not sure they'll be after any more 'lead' Autobots any time soon. Still mildly surprised he's not the "toy" name for Mirage at least. The past two films have largely established that new Autobots tend to be background.

What I'd do if it was up to me would be to have a consciously less epic storyline. I'd have an RiD-style Scourge character (I'd probably actually merge RiD Scourge and Magnus, basically) with the Combaticons land on Earth, a former protege of Megatron/The Fallen/one or the other of the Primes and are basically out to kill the Autobots for revenge; no real designs on Earth apart from stopping NEST and the like from getting in the way. Still plenty of scope for eye-popping action and it wouldn't be too hard to use NEST or the government to thread our new human leads into it.

numbat
2012-01-15, 06:19 PM
I like that idea, Cliffy. It'd be a decent story. I'd maybe prefer it if Scourge actually was an Autobot and a Prime, but a more ruthless Decepticon-type rival faction for whatever reason (but not a Decepticon or disciple of The Fallen), who had justifiable claim to the Matrix, and no designs on humans other than where they got in the way. Maybe they'd been incarcerated for war crimes or some-such during the Cybertronian Wars and released through a malfunction brought on by transporting the planet in DOTM. Real nemesis stuff. That'd be fun.

:swirly:

Of course, it won't happen - it'll just try and top the last, and who knows how, although I'd be surprised if it was clever... (I would love to be proven wrong though!)

TURBO CHARGER
2012-01-23, 09:47 PM
Really? 3 Renegade Primes in a row?

numbat
2012-01-24, 09:07 AM
Really? 3 Renegade Primes in a row?
Sure, why not?

:swirly:

OK. On second thoughts, maybe a new approach is needed. A good solid villain would be nice, but I struggle to see a decent character being made of it, instead of a simple 2D cartoon bad guy, or a pantomime villain like The Fallen. Some decent motivation would be nice.

Vin Ghostal
2012-01-24, 03:31 PM
Part of the problem is that the first three films, as much as I love them, follow a pretty simple formula:

1. Find something extremely powerful, located on or near Earth.

2. Activate something else extremely powerful.

Transformers: AllSpark, Megatron
ROTF: Matrix, Sun Harvester
DOTM: Sentinel, Space Bridge

They've at once got to deviate from this formula while staying true to the series. Honestly, how many more important talismans, objects, and dead/deactivated Transformers could be located on Earth or the Moon?

numbat
2012-01-24, 05:15 PM
They've at once got to deviate from this formula while staying true to the series. Honestly, how many more important talismans, objects, and dead/deactivated Transformers could be located on Earth or the Moon?
I'm guessing - as many as they need for the films...

But, yeah, you're right. However, I don't see any reason why you couldn't base a new villain in RID Scourge seeking Earth out because he wants Prime's matrix. That's a little different - it doesn't invent any new artifacts or connections with Earth.

Or you could just have the threat of Unicron coming through the Solar System and munching planets for no particular reason. Or maybe because the Matrix is the only thing that can defeat him. But that'd be very similar in plot, and I really doubt it would work in live action.

At the end of the day, the film will take place on Earth, and if you've wiped out the existing Decepticons you'll need an excuse for new bad guys to arrive here. Alternatively, if there are somehow still Decepticons, you need an excuse for them to want to stay and cause mischief. Frankly, Transformers never had the strongest of plots anywhere, and more and more films will almost certainly result in more and more weak or unlikely plots linking things to Earth. It's made worse by needing to have major disaster-level drivers that have to be resolved in a single film. That's why I'd be quite happy with the movies ending at DOTM, but I won't lie - I'll be straight in line to see TF4, and if the designs and toys are good, I'll no doubt buy a few.

Bountyhunter
2012-01-24, 08:41 PM
There are plenty of decepticons left untouched by Bay thus far that could be effective even if they were never the leader before.

Plus hundreds of decepticons came via the space bridge. There is a lot left they can do. Personally I am routing for Astrotrain as the decepticon leader. He could be very effective also they could do a story about something having been retrieved from cybertron because of the space bridge. there is a lot of life left if they keep Megatron dead.

numbat
2012-01-24, 09:20 PM
There are plenty of decepticons left untouched by Bay thus far that could be effective even if they were never the leader before.

Plus hundreds of decepticons came via the space bridge. There is a lot left they can do. Personally I am routing for Astrotrain as the decepticon leader. He could be very effective also they could do a story about something having been retrieved from cybertron because of the space bridge. there is a lot of life left if they keep Megatron dead.

Do a lot of the Decepticons not end up getting sucked into the sky and lost with Cybertron at the end of DOTM though?

You're right, though, there are plenty of good Decepticon characters left if they can work out a good way to include them now.

I'd personally like to see G2 Clench as leader, if not RID Scourge. And I think Animated/RTS Lugnut would male a great looming presence, while Armada/Energon Tidal Wave would be about as epic as I think live action could handle. Plenty Seekers left to reuse Screamer's CGI model too...

horizon
2012-01-25, 04:10 AM
Megatron's head got cut loose at the end of DotM, right?

Well, introduce headmasters.

An evil genius wants to control a robot like Megatron to take over the world.
But the execution is done more low profile then full out attacks.

Yes, not a big story, but I still in the believe a good Former movie does not need a high end story. I always laugh if people say the story in Transformer movie was bad. Because they weren't, even RotF wasn't megabad. It just had a dumb plot.

Bountyhunter
2012-02-01, 06:17 AM
Do we really have to have true decepticons as the bad guys? I mean its obiously based one g1 in part but the characters are not quite the same could they do something a little different like uncover Grimlock and the dinobots or shrapnel and the insecticons or some beast wars characters and have them run amok and have that as the basis for the plot? the is a lot of possibi;ities if we step out side the box and play with it a little. It doesnt have to be decepticons per sec'

Summerhayes
2012-02-01, 10:44 AM
Although that could make for a superior film, i suspect it would be too risky for the studio. Autobots fighting Decepticons is what people have been paying the big bucks to see and anything else would feel like too much of a side story.

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-01, 02:44 PM
I like the idea of a decepticon assassination squad looking for revenge on Optimus. You could have the combaticons fill the role as onslaught would make a good opposite of prime. Have Prime and Bee cut off from the rest of the bots on a clean-up mission in south america and one part of the movie is the other bots trying to locate the missing robots (sat recon can be knocked out by blast off) and Prime and Bee (with some humans) trying to out smart the pursuing Combaticons. The smaller cast could help with the cost and the idea of the cavalry arriving just in time to take on bruticus would make a good finale.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-01, 04:19 PM
I like the basic idea, but the problem is all three films have had fairly sizeable segments where Prime and/or Bee are separated from the rest, and the result has invariably been "the others get very little to do".

My ideal film would be one that would actually play up or create specialities for the likes of Dino, Sideswipe, Ratchet etc. beyond having them fighting in the background, even if it was something relatively simple like the Wreckers getting sent to do a side-mission while Optimus & co battle someone else (to use DotM's storyline, I'd have moved the spacebridge to a location other than Chicago and have the Wreckers trying to destroy it while the Autobots held off the invasion force, or vice versa).

[TF Prime-related]
Though having finally got around to watching the last three or four episodes of Prime, I'm totally converted as to how they could do Unicron. Ace stuff.

Summerhayes
2012-02-01, 11:41 PM
Well, now I know this phone can't hide spoiler text. Still, thats reminded me to go online at the weekend and Deliberately Order Well-Notarised Legal Official Authorised Dvds all the eps of Prime I haven't seen.

With no Sam, Bumblebee will probably have a reduced roll. A good plan might be to, instead of introducing Hotshot or someone, just have the main fleshling befriend Optimus. That way they'd kill two birds with one stone and free up screen time for the other autobots.

Bountyhunter
2012-02-02, 04:39 AM
Two other bots that could fill the void would be introduce either Hound or Tracks. Either could take up the void of bee and free up other bots as the interact with the humns and are introduced

praetorian
2012-02-02, 04:06 PM
With the popularity of Bumblebee for younger audience members, and the sales on Camaros, I sincerely doubt they would reduce his role in a new film. It seems more likely that many audience members would *expect* any new human character to be attached to Bumblebee.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-02, 04:23 PM
Two other bots that could fill the void would be introduce either Hound or Tracks.

Mmm, well-known franchise buttresses Hound and Tracks.

We could well see either name-slapped on Autobots used to fill out the ranks, but new Autobots are likely to be picked pretty much at random depending on whether someone likes their name, so there's as much chance of seeing Gearhead and Roadhandler. That the either semi-obscure or made-up-on-the-plot likes of Roadbuster, Topspin, Leadfoot, Jolt, Skids, Mudflap, Que and Dino have jumped past the bulk of the early cast suggests they don't particularly give a toss about following the Sunbow cartoon's rankings.

TBH, if Bay isn't tempted back, whoever takes over is going to be briefed to copy his films as much as possible. DotM took a billion dollars (not to mention better notices than ROTF, even if they were more along the lines of "Okay, okay, you win"); Hasbro/Paramount are not going to want a huge change. The best case scenario is that whoever does the job can ape his strengths and work on some of the weaknesses. There's not going to be some wet-brained reverse in direction to clone some computer game normal people are never going to play.

FWIW I think Bay's largely done a good balancing act across the three movies. How many films can you name with a dozen well-developed characters in them (and no Trek/Wars fancruft where they feature characters who were made interesting somewhere else and get three lines in the actual movie - Bev Crusher and Boba Fett are not well-developed film characters)?

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-02, 07:39 PM
FWIW I think Bay's largely done a good balancing act across the three movies. How many films can you name with a dozen well-developed characters in them

Honestly? Or do you mean just over a trilogy? Either way, there are plenty of films that do multiple characters better than Transformers 1-3. Credit to Bay, he does the action scenes well but nothing is tied together especially well as a plot or even scene to scene in some cases. After the first one, things follow the way most hollywood blockbuster trilogy set ups go. Everything gets overcooked and the main characters lose their appeal.

Except Prime. I always got love for the Prime-man.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-02, 08:35 PM
Yeah, I think "Well developed" is pushing it for most of the cast. I'd say Sam and, perhaps surprisingly, Megatron (thanks to the films basically being his slow decline) are but that's about it.

Of the rest of the regulars, they, at best, tend to be what the Marvel comic did best, quick sketch characters who are a lot of fun but there's not much depth there. Simmons is nuts, Prime is stoic (a lot of his strength of character comes from Cullen's performance really), Bumblebee is psychotic, Ironhide is a badass, Que is Q and so on. I'd even say Lennox regressed over the films as the family man side of his character vanished after the first one.

I suppose you could argue the case for Starscream, but he always felt more like a one dimensional character where they kept changing their mind about what that dimension was.

I'd certainly say that, even ignoring the spin offs and prequels, the Star Wars films can manage as many characters with as much depth to them.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-02, 09:05 PM
I didn't say the TF cast were well-developed. I said Bay had done a good balancing act (developing 3-4 characters, and then giving a fair few others at least something to do that made them stand out briefly - with the exception of late addition Jolt, all of the Autobots and most of the named Decepticons get their show-off scene). Then I asked how many films people could come up with that had suceeded at coming out with a dozen well-developed characters. Feel free to misinterpret, though, whatever keeps people warm at night.

There are some, but not many, and few are by the sort of people who'd get involved with a toy robot film.

I mean, take The Wild Bunch. It's one of the greatest films ever made, fact. Pike, Dutch and Thornton are well-rounded characters. The Gorch brothers, Angel, Sykes and Mapache are decent sketches. Everyone else is pretty much a cypher. Or Star Wars (the first one, not all 15 or however many Lucas has shitted out now) - Luke, Han, Leia and maybe Obi-Wan, Vader and Tarkin are three-dimensional, the rest are largely flashy bit-part players in the way Ironhide or Leadfoot are.

SW probably comes off better through a slightly more equal division of screen-time. C3PO, R2D2 and Chewbacca don't really develop after their first scenes, but they're just in the rest of the trilogy a lot doing the same thing - which probably makes them about on par with Ironhide or Sideswipe.

The Star Wars films probably manage it, though some characters shuffle in and out of the rankings a little (e.g. Lando, pretty good in Empire, relegated to Generic Rebel Pilot in Jedi). But then the original SW films are generally held up as the classic action/adventure/science fantasy films, so TF getting out-pointed by them is nothing to be ashamed of, surely?

But most films, especially good films, concentrate on two, three, four, five main characters with the rest rendered in lesser detail. Any desire to have a film with 10-12 well-rounded Transformers characters, plus a few three-dimensional human allies, is borne out of a complete misunderstanding of the medium. How many of the Dirty Dozen can you profile off-hand? It's Bronson and Cassavettes, and then you're onto The Black Guy, The Big Dumb Guy, The Religious Nut Guy, The Donald Sutherland Guy, The Moustache Guy, The Guy You Can't Even Remember Guy, etc.

Either way, there are plenty of films that do multiple characters better than Transformers 1-3.

Plenty of action movies, yeh? Name some. Let's see how many you can come up with.

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-02, 09:29 PM
Young Guns, First Die Hard, Aliens, Predator (granted those last two only really deal with the good guys), Robocop, Usual Suspects (not quite an action film but shows how to evolve stock characters), X-men 2 & X-Men First Class, Ghostbusters, Jurassic Park (again mostly just the good guys), Kill Bill Volume 1, Dusk til Dawn, Terminator 1, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Snatch...

Now I'm not saying all those films have a huge range of fully rounded characters but all the above contain groups of characters who have either depth or at least very distinct traits, and in quite a few cases, both. And these means that all of the above films have characters which stand out much more than the characters in Bays movies.

The main problem with the transformers movies is that most are relegated to a line or two of dialogue with maybe an action spot. And even when we do get a main character they are mostly archtypes without any real distinguishing quirks to make them memorable.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-02, 09:33 PM
I suppose Lord of the Rings is the obvious one, but, thinking about it, generally action films aren't really interested in large ensemble casts are they? It's usually one or two loners against a single villain with a large red shirt army at his disposal. Of all the examples RDP mentions, very few come even close to having 12 main characters (hell, the first Terminator can only manage three).

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-02, 09:53 PM
In defence of Terminator - true, its a small cast but I always think of how well the background characters stand out - sarah connors "cooky" room mate, the two world weary cops, and the shrink who gets to evolve in the sequel. But fair enough, probably wasnt the best suggestion.

I would also question whether transformers has 12 main characters. Yes, Prime and Bumblebee get starring rules but the other autobots are just supporting characters. The decepticon side is even worse. Sentinal Prime and Megatron get a bit of the spotlight but even the fallen gets very little character.

From the human side there's Sam and Mikaela, and Lennox & Simmons but the other characters are really supporting roles. I'll give the first one a thumbs up for the president and the 2 hackers but I cant think of anyone in the 2 sequels who stands out as a main character (Frances McDormand should have had a bigger part in 3 but gets sidelined for most of it and Carly and Dylan are just plotpoints really)

Look, I appreciate everyone has an opinion so if any thinks different thats fine. But as films go the last 2 are, to me, really poor. They lack memorable characters and have overblown plots. And that doesnt have to be the case with Blockbusters.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-02, 09:59 PM
Yup, which means TF is probably par for the course (and arguably develops the red shirts - which is realistically anyone bar Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron and Sentinel - better than most of its' ilk by giving them some sort of nuance). It's part of the genre, and completely the right approach to take for a cinematic take on Transformers.

LotR I'd say is arguable. In the films Legolas, Gimli, the two comedy Hobbits and numerous others are flattened into one-dimensional cyphers simply by condensing an aging hippy's directionless brain dribblings into something that would be watchable. It probably does stack up slightly better, but again is an acclaimed high point - indeed, they're among the more acclaimed films of recent times (though, to segue a moment, that'll drop off given a decade or two), and again something there's no shame in not matching.

Now I'm not saying all those films have a huge range of fully rounded characters but all the above contain groups of characters who have either depth or at least very distinct traits, and in quite a few cases, both. And these means that all of the above films have characters which stand out much more than the characters in Bays movies.

Right - so it's a list of films with lots of characters in which doesn't have much with what I said. Good work!

Let's cherry pick a few (ones I've seen recently; the Singer X-Men films blended into one big pile of shit for me)

Ghostbusters - Spengler, Stanz, Venkmann, Venkmann's fancy lady (maybe). That's it.

Usual Suspects - most of the line-up (though Fenster is ONLY memorable because of Benicio del Toro's bizarre performance; that's the same level of scripted depth as Dino; exactly the same goes for the intentional non-character of Kobayashi), the DA.

Dusk Til Dawn - Clooney, Keitel, Keitel's kids. Quentin plays Quentin's Interview Schtick. Salma Hayek plays a leg.

I could do this with more, but there's no point, because "distinctive traits" isn't what I asked for.

The live action TFs have "distinct traits" - Ironhide and Sideswipe are bunch and warlike (Sideswipe's more of a show-off, Ironhide's more of a gun nut); Que's an eccentric inventor; Skids and Mudflap are wannabe gangsters, Bonecrusher's a rabid thug, Jetfire's a grumpy old man, Blackout's a loyal lieutenant, etc.

Those aren't developed or well-rounded characters. Neither is Winston Zeddmore, Jack Baer or Sex Machine.

So, come on. Action films with more than a handful of well-rounded characters.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-02, 10:06 PM
I would also question whether transformers has 12 main characters.

My word, Wikipedia has let me down again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2#Holidays_and_observances

They've left National Arse-Pull Day off the list.

Never said it had 12 main characters. I'm saying it's unrealistic for anyone to expect that, so obviously they concentrate on a few characters and the others are given scraps of varying quality and quantity. Like the vast majority of all films ever.

With something like Transformers you're always going to get a bunch of idiots going "How come Ratchet wasn't as well-developed as he was in a 122-page IDW trade?", "Why isn't Thundercracker in it?" - why didn't my favourite get something awesome and amazing and important to do because he's my favourite.

Christ.

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-02, 10:51 PM
Now, now. Calm Down.

The 12 characters was in relation to the post Dalek made.

Also in regards to people having unrealistic expectations: I'd agree with you that not every transformer should or can be given a fully developed character and agree that they dont need to. But I would argue that we could have gotten a bit more. Take Ironhide. From the films I gather he is a fan of guns and heroic. He is designated as Primes weapons officer. He doesnt seem to have the same respect for life as Prime as he is willing to shoot sams dog and parents. He uses a clint eastwood quote to establish his character, although speaks in slightly refined voice (although thats my opinion)

Lets compare him with Blain from Predator as they are both similar enough. Even though we only see him for less than half the film we know that he is ultra macho and views himself as more manly than the others (calls the others slack jawed fags, makes a point that he doesnt have time to bleed when cut), he has a fetish for guns (carries a minigun nicknamed old painless). He and Mac go back as far as the vietnam war where they both were the sole survivors in an ambush on their platoon. We also know he doesnt respect authority going by his treatment of Dillon. He's also given a few character traits to distinguish him from the others such as his chewing tobacco and his cowboy hat.

Now, I'll accept that I much prefer Predator to Transformers but to me theres a lot more to Blain then Ironhide. He stands out more. In fact I'd say that we get more on Dutch in DOTM over Ironhide over all three of the Bay movies

If we take the characters of Prime and Bumblebee I dont feel they have as much depth as Ripley (aliens), McClane (Die Hard) Riggs & Murtagh (lethal weapon) Bruce Wayne (batman begins) or many others. And as villans go Megatron & the fallen dont compare with Hans Gruber (die hard), Clarence Boddicker & Dick Jones(robocop), Quaritch (Avatar), Joker (dark knight) or Voldormort (Harry Potter) Barbossa & Jones (Pirates of the Carabean)

If we take Megatron, one of the main complaints of him is what a waste he is of Hugo Weaving who made a great villian in the Matrix.

Although I didnt like him past the first one, I do think Sam was done pretty well. Simmons is done well too. And Prime. But past those three I dont think any other character could be considered well-developed.

Back to you.

praetorian
2012-02-03, 01:37 PM
I think you have to add Bumblebee to that list. Developing character in an action movie is difficult anyway (though I'm not sure that character development is much of a driving force in action movies to begin with). But Bumblebee was given character development over the course of the trilogy, and that without having the character speak, except to say, 'I want to stay with the boy' at the end of TF1. We know that he is loyal, friendly, and a protective guardian. He gets sad when Sam tells him he can't come to college. He even encourages Sam to go after Mikaela in the first one. We also know that he's no spineless extra; I still think ripping Ravage apart was one of the best fighting sequences of the three films and really proved Bumblebee's mettle. He's not a leader like Prime, but he is certainly confident. He never loses the protective guardian characteristic throughout the three films, and he is more 'mature' by the end of the DotM.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-08, 03:19 PM
Huh. Thought I'd replied. Apologies...

On Blaine/Ironhide, I've not seen Predator for, oh, years and have no real desire to revisit, but TBH your list of basic characteristics for Ironhide stack up pretty neatly. I'd say Ironhide is actually a bad choice because he does receive some characterisation, especially relative to his scant screen-time. Ironhide is behind Sam, Mik, Optimus, Megatron, Bumblebee, Simmons, Lennox and Epps at least in the first film (possibly behind Barricade, Frenzy and Jazz as well). He's not a supporting character, he's a grunt with a fair attempt at a personality that goes beyond "Yes, sir!". He's more developed than the equivalent character in most other films. Blaine is 5th-billed for Predator.


In fact I'd say that we get more on Dutch in DOTM over Ironhide over all three of the Bay movies

And I'd say we didn't. Isn't this subjective stuff fun? I like Dutch, but he's 90%+ Alan Tudyk going mental. If anything, he's the antithesis of characterisation, because he has random abilities that become apparent when they're needed for the plot (he's Simmons' Gay PA until the scene in the Russian bar, and later on he gets super hacker abilities), but he gets a free pass because he's funny and because Tudyk's wired.

If we take Megatron, one of the main complaints of him is what a waste he is of Hugo Weaving who made a great villian in the Matrix.

No, the concept of Agent Smith made a great villain in the Matrix. Do you seriously think no-one else could have put a suit on and spoken in a monotone? Mark Gatiss managed that, and he's shit. Weaving is a respectable actor, nothing more, and getting gun-for-hire work as a summer movie villain is about his level.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-08, 08:36 PM
I don't know, I think what Weaving did in The Matrix was deceptively simple. Taking an emotiontionless one tone character and still giving them a personality without it seeming contrived it a fairly tricky balancing act, as shown by many of the non-David Banks 80's Cybermen (or indeed, the other Agents in the Matrix films who often seem to be doing bad Hugo Weaving impressions). It's telling the directors obviously weren't expecting the character to take off to such an extent as they kill him off despite the open sequel hunting ending of the first one. And when they do bring him back he's been upgraded from Agent to the Uber Nemesis of just about everyone else in the films.

The odd thing is, Weaving's really the only "Name" (ie, someone known outside of animation fan circles) actor playing a Transformer in the first one, yet the size of the role is that they might as well have gone for Welker or Kaye, it wouldn't have made very much difference (and I say that as someone who was very much against Shut The Fans Up casting on the first one before Cullen had me squeeing like a little girl at a Justin Beiber concert).

Cliffjumper
2012-02-08, 08:52 PM
I do still think Kaye would have been perfect - it's not like he would have been doing a BW impression, something pitched between that and BM. I've been pleasantly surprised by how good he's been in Prime, because he was dire in G1.

But yeh, Weaving is an odd choice - it's not like the film was even "Starring Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox and Hugo Weaving" or anything (while he's not exactly mondo box office man, Jon Voight's an odd one from the first film too). Regardless of his merit as an actor, I'd say he's a poor voice actor - his stuff as Megatron is somewhat phoned-in (IIRC, literally and it shows) whereas most of the characters are (objectively, style choices aside) well-voiced.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-08, 09:03 PM
Aye, the "Special Guest Star" Transformers in the two sequels work much better, Tony Todd doesn't get a lot to do but with a voice like that it doesn't matter, and Nimoy actually gets a decent meaty part he can have some fun with.

tahukanuva
2012-02-14, 02:51 AM
Trans4mers (http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php), as it will hopefully not be called, is now on for June 29, 2014.

Red Dave Prime
2012-02-14, 03:13 AM
Oh well, guess number 4 wont be my cup of tea either. Unless old Mickey tries a "less is more" approach.

Without wishing to stir things up again, I really dont see what Bay can bring to a fourth film. Yes, I'm sure it will be a commercial success which is great for Hasbro and Paramount but I'd love to see what JJ Abrahms or Spielberg himself could do with the franchise.

Clay
2012-02-14, 05:03 AM
Trans4mers (http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php), as it will hopefully not be called, is now on for June 29, 2014.

How can they possibly meet that deadline if Bay is supposed to do another movie before then?*

*A: Poorly

tahukanuva
2012-02-14, 06:09 AM
Also it's possibly a bit of a reboot kind of? (http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/transformers-4-in-2014-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-thinks-so-174394/) Or something.

That... seems really weird. I mean, reboots are how these franchises do now, but they don't generally keep the same people in charge.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-14, 08:57 AM
Well, however they handle it I bet now Megatron will be back even if it's not a reboot. I can't see him not being in the 30th anniversary film somehow, even if it's just flashbacks to explain how whatever McGuffin the film is centred around happened to get to Earth (yes, I'm also expecting the same plot).

And if it is a reboot (or as I suspect will be more likely the case, just vaguely detached from the previous films with few contradictions but no direct links. Mind, as Bay seems to like him I'd be surprised if Morshower isn't back, even if as a different character again) I'd assume the Trans4ormers thing will be dropped very quickly.

horizon
2012-02-14, 12:03 PM
It will be movie loosely connected to the others but the same continuity.
(Bonaventura, MTV)

In perpective:
Bumblebee & Optimus Prime are THE franchise bots. So Hasbro / Paramount will push them most likely.

Perhaps the movie will be a prequel, or an inbetween movie?


Ultra Magnus, Prowl, Nightbeat would be cool characters to headline though.

Megatron - headmaster ;)

Ratbat as the leader - responsible for ecomical & financial crisis, he IS Goldman Sachs. haha

Trans4ormers = dumb.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-14, 01:41 PM
Trans4rmers is surely a placeholder, or at worst just something that'll be retained on the logo typeface - Trans4rmers: Optimus Prime Beats Up Everyone, or whatever. If nothing else, "Trans4rmers" and the first one's "Transformers" would surely look basically identical, which wouldn't help promo.

Echo what Dalek says continuity-wise - it's going to be a fresh start more than a new continuity IMO; they're not going to waste screentime explaining what's happened to Sam or any other humans who aren't signed up/TFs that are dropped and it's probably going to be light on references, but I doubt there'll be any outright contradictions. I doubt we're going to have, say, the Transformers arriving on Earth for the first time or whatever.

Regarding Megatron, they can get away with a lot in the films in terms of resurrections because I doubt anyone involved gives a shit about brain modules, sparks and the like; as far as the audience is concerned these are robots that run on magic. Top them up with some fresh magic, glue-gun them back together and away they go.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-14, 08:36 PM
Yeah, I think the worst thing that will happen in terms of continuity is some Who style amnesia on the part of the population with regards to all the giant alien robots invasions (which we've already had a bit of in the last two anyway), so they can keep the sense of wonder and surprise when the new human first meets the Autobots.

Summerhayes
2012-02-14, 08:42 PM
I don't care what any of you say. Trans4mers is an awesome name. To be honest, I'm just super stoked that its actually happening. Best news I've had in weeks.

Blackjack
2012-02-15, 10:04 AM
Mmm, I thought it was just another wild rumour, but fourth movie YAY! Don't really mind Michael Bay returning, a change in directors might be good but might also be disastrous (like what happened to the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie) so for one I endorse the choice of director, mainly because we know Bay could improve, as proved by the leap from ROTF to DOTM.

Trans4mers... meh, obvious placeholder title... but I honestly don't mind if it did show up like that.

Honestly, I don't really care what shows up in the fourth movie... if they try to reinvent G1 characters the fans complain because they're different, if they introduce original ones the fans complain because 'they should be named after G1 characters even though they don't look a thing alike'. So screw all you G1 maniacs.

I'm just more worried about how they'll handle the soft reboot thing.

Sades
2012-02-15, 11:18 AM
I'm just more worried about how they'll handle the soft reboot thing.

Have no fear!

0GLrBH2arKA

Brimstone
2012-02-15, 04:35 PM
I'm just more worried about how they'll handle the soft reboot thing.

Steven Spielberg and I are working on a whole new re imagining of Transformers, the fourth installment.

Seems a little more serious than just a "soft" reboot.

inflatable dalek
2012-02-15, 08:32 PM
"Re imagining" isn't automatically the same as a reboot, it could just mean a drastically new look and style for the films. Say the difference between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.

Though with Bay having a fairly standard style, I suppose that's not hugely likely.

Cliffjumper
2012-02-15, 08:36 PM
Mmm, sounds a lot like generic "it won't be exactly the same as the last one" movie-speak to me.

bumblebeefan6987
2012-04-19, 04:07 PM
As Digital Spy has what seems to be the first (possibly entirely fictitious) report up on plans for the next movie/s I thought a thread to collect all these things together as they come along over the next few years would be a good idea:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a346104/steven-spielberg-michael-bay-in-talks-for-transformers-4-5.html

So, they're at least looking into getting Bay back directing, hardly surprising considering the gonzo boxoffice, and may film the next two back to back. Frankly if the Statham thing is even remotely true I can't see him playing the main lead (which I can see being a more direct Sam substitute), maybe a Lennox style character.

i would be devostated if jason statham got the lead role i just cant imagine jason statham screeming for bumblebees help or optimus!!!!! not like shia could

Summerhayes
2012-04-22, 09:32 AM
I'm sure Shia is very pleased that his ability to scream for help is world-renowned.
To be fair, he does scream like a little girl

relak
2012-04-23, 02:23 AM
i would be devostated if jason statham got the lead role i just cant imagine jason statham screeming for bumblebees help or optimus!!!!! not like shia could

OH come on. Statham will be the one to single handedly take down a mook decepticon. Hell, maybe he'd get the killshot on the big bad himself.

Lead roles need not be helpless human punks.

Summerhayes
2012-04-23, 06:56 AM
OH come on. Statham will be the one to single handedly take down a mook decepticon. Hell, maybe he'd get the killshot on the big bad himself.

Lead roles need not be helpless human punks.

I think thats exactly what people don't want . . . do you remember how much they complained that people could take down 'cons at all?

relak
2012-04-23, 12:52 PM
I think thats exactly what people don't want . . . do you remember how much they complained that people could take down 'cons at all?

Thats cos they made cons weak and being able to be taken down by regular 40mm rounds.
Make the deceps near invincible THEN have Jason Statham take one down.

Statham's going to go Crank II on the Decepticon's afterburners.

Summerhayes
2012-04-29, 11:49 AM
The near-invincible robots from the comics would be a hard sell, especially if they can kill eachother with ease but can't we scratch them. We wouldn't have anything as awesome as Prime flying in and chopping up a street full of deceps at the end of DOTM

relak
2012-04-29, 02:15 PM
The near-invincible robots from the comics would be a hard sell, especially if they can kill eachother with ease but can't we scratch them. We wouldn't have anything as awesome as Prime flying in and chopping up a street full of deceps at the end of DOTM

you could bring in a explanation for the lasers that transforners use.

The robots are near invincible to the projectile weapons of humans.
The only thing that can hurt them is energon based weapons that only transformers can use.

thats the impression i get as to why the TFs are near invincible in the comics.

praetorian
2012-06-22, 02:26 PM
Michael Bay on TF4:

“It’s not a reboot," Bay said, reiterating that the new film will have an all-new cast. "That’s maybe the wrong word. I don’t want to say 'reboot' because then people will think we’re doing a 'Spider-Man' and starting from the beginning. We’re not. We’re taking the story that you’ve seen — the story we’ve told in three movies already — and we’re taking it in a new direction. But we’re leaving those three as the history. It all still counts... We’re moving on to something different.”

Director Bay mentioned a bit about the plot as well...
"That feels like the way to go, doesn’t it?" says Bay. "I want to go a little off [the planet] but I don’t want to go too sci-fi. I still want to keep it grounded."

Source (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=91761)

another tf fan
2012-06-23, 12:33 AM
Truth be told Michael Bay is the only one who knows anything and likely is telling us nothing.

Quite possibly Bay has very little planned at this stage and can't tell us anything because there is nothing to tell.

Hell, he prepared RotF without most of a script and doesn't need much to make these movies. There may be little of the story developed at this time so no real revelations are forthcoming for at least another year.

iaconhub2005
2012-06-26, 01:43 AM
Seems a little more serious than just a "soft" reboot.
I'm thinking it would be something like "Son of the Pink Panther" (okay, bad example), where it's in the same continuity, but the story goes in a new direction. The term "reboot" confuses me too. I think of a reboot as the same thing as a remake. No one calls the 1994 version of Miracle on 34th Street a reboot. The new Nightmare on Elm Street, I would also call a remake. Maybe it's just me.