Submit News Contact Us Translate Sign in Join

ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4

Transformers News: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4

Friday, November 4th, 2011 9:10AM CDT

Categories: Movie News, Rumors
Posted by: El Duque   Views: 107,629

Topic Options: View Discussion · Sign in or Join to reply

During a recent interview ILM's Scott Farrar talked about the possibility of another Transformers sequel. He says Paramount has already approached him for a fourth film, and he seems to confirm that director Michael Bay has also been contacted. No confirmation of course, but Farrar says he's on board for another film. Video embedded below.

Credit(s): universalhomevideo YouTube
Search Got Transformers News? Let us know here!
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308506)
Posted by Blackstreak on November 4th, 2011 @ 10:52am CDT
With the success of the first 3 films why not just land the next trilogy set all at once? I'd be up for it.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308555)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 4th, 2011 @ 12:36pm CDT
Perché ci sono i sottotitoli? E perchè sono in Italiano?
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308556)
Posted by BeastProwl on November 4th, 2011 @ 12:36pm CDT
watch this be another BS campaign. Still, they did do good telling us the truth about dotm...
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308577)
Posted by Autobot032 on November 4th, 2011 @ 1:33pm CDT
BeastProwl wrote:watch this be another BS campaign. Still, they did do good telling us the truth about dotm...


....why on earth would you call this a BS campaign and by extension, call this man a liar?

1.) Brian Goldner (head of Hasbro) has stated several times that the films will continue and that they want them to.

2.) The Hollywood Reporter and Variety both reported of the silent meetings between Goldner, Bay and Paramount.

3.) Bay has lied to keep us at arm's length, but never out of malice.

4.) ILM, or their people, have never lied to anyone. Maybe held silent by a NDA, but lie? Never.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308616)
Posted by JazzLuca on November 4th, 2011 @ 4:26pm CDT
Sabrblade wrote:Perché ci sono i sottotitoli? E perchè sono in Italiano?


Because the interview was made in Italy last week, when Farrar was a guest on Lucca Comics&Games from Universal, and he was interviewed also in our first Italian Official Meeting, I.A.CON., as you can see here:
http://www.seibertron.com/energonpub/i-a-con-first-official-transformers-fans-meeting-in-italy-t81850.php :-)
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308766)
Posted by Rodimus Prime on November 5th, 2011 @ 6:19am CDT
Meh, it's all talk right now. I'll get happy when there's actually something concrete. If they were smart, they'd wait 5-6 years for the next film. Bring the next trilogy out in 2- or 3-year increments.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1308876)
Posted by T-Macksimus on November 5th, 2011 @ 2:42pm CDT
NOOOO!!! No No No f'ing NO! Cut them off right now! The first 3, while decent enough, had serious flaws by the end of the last film and releasing more will just add to the continuity sh**-storm that the first trilogy became. Stop them now while they are still on top because continuing the series will just turn it all into a farce and complete and utter crap-fest. Next time around they are going to do something lame like bringing Unicron into the mix or some other b.s. idea. They need to focus on the animated series and toy production and leave the live-action alone for another 5 or so years.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309112)
Posted by xtsaur on November 6th, 2011 @ 9:28am CST
OH HELL YEAH!!! this is the greatest move franchise of all time... Hellz to they yeah to keep this going... more epicness, more toys, more Linkin Park. Best news ever!!! now get to work. I need a transforming aircraft carrier and a stealth bomber!!!! :KREMZEEK: :KREMZEEK: :KREMZEEK: :KREMZEEK: :KREMZEEK:
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309150)
Posted by Starscreamers on November 6th, 2011 @ 11:00am CST
Well... it wood be nice. But they have to change a lot of things, the movies were turned into comedies. The Transformers should be sirius, like the new Batman movies or like The Matrix or Terminator movies. And the editing and storyline are all over the place, they just put anything and everything all over the place, it doesnt flow properly. They also had characters in the movies that basicly were'nt even in the movies, no screen time at all. Just one exsample, Megatron and Starsceam, were barely in the movies and there supposed to be main characters,"What The Hell". Plus other characters which only had two seconds of sceen time!

There are too many mistakes in the movies, I could go on and on but I won't.
I vote for James Cameron to take over the next three films and I am positive they will be even more epic then the first three.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309176)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 6th, 2011 @ 12:19pm CST
One of my biggest problems with these movie is that they aren't Transformers movies. They're Shia LaBeouf movies with some Transformers as guest stars and supporting cast. The Transformers play second fiddle to the humans in their own movies. #-o
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309667)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on November 7th, 2011 @ 7:44pm CST
Sabrblade wrote:One of my biggest problems with these movie is that they aren't Transformers movies. They're Shia LaBeouf movies with some Transformers as guest stars and supporting cast. The Transformers play second fiddle to the humans in their own movies. #-o


QFT.

I kept asking myself what was missing in the TF movies that should have made me really LOVE them. And then I realized that there were too many humans, too much unnecessary comedy, and WAY TOO MUCH Shia. The first two movies felt more like, "Shia's Comedy Hour Featuring The Transformers."

That said, I think DOTM did a far better job at balancing the screen time and plot emphasis between Shia and the TF's. IMO, DOTM is the only TF movie of the three that actually FEELS like a TF movie.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309679)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 7th, 2011 @ 8:09pm CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:One of my biggest problems with these movie is that they aren't Transformers movies. They're Shia LaBeouf movies with some Transformers as guest stars and supporting cast. The Transformers play second fiddle to the humans in their own movies. #-o


QFT.

I kept asking myself what was missing in the TF movies that should have made me really LOVE them. And then I realized that there were too many humans, too much unnecessary comedy, and WAY TOO MUCH Shia. The first two movies felt more like, "Shia's Comedy Hour Featuring The Transformers."

That said, I think DOTM did a far better job at balancing the screen time and plot emphasis between Shia and the TF's. IMO, DOTM is the only TF movie of the three that actually FEELS like a TF movie.
The problem with DOTM is that 90% of the Decepticons are nameless generics instead of actual characters. Starscream, Soundwave, SHOCKWAVE, Barricade, Igor, the Dreads, all of them are wasted in their performances doing little more than just being "bad guys". Only difference between them and the generics are that they have names.

The only Con in any of the trilogy that was actually a good character with excellent screentime, characterization, execution, and personality all together was Laserbeak. Everyone else was only about as half as good as him or worse.

And DOTM still had too much Shia. Right at the moment we were told that Sam gave back Bumblebee was the moment I knew he'd still be stealing the spotlight in this one.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309749)
Posted by sto_vo_kor_2000 on November 8th, 2011 @ 12:27am CST
Sabrblade wrote:The problem with DOT is that 90% of the Decepticons are nameless generics instead of actual characters. Starscream, Soundwave, SHOCKWAVE, Barricade, Igor, the Dreads, all of them are wasted in their performances doing little more than just being "bad guys". Only difference between them and the generics are that they have names.


pretty much the case with all 3 films.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309765)
Posted by Capt.Failure on November 8th, 2011 @ 2:09am CST
Sabrblade wrote:One of my biggest problems with these movie is that they aren't Transformers movies.



HAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, you're wrong. Just because you didn't like them doesn't make them not Transformers films.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309770)
Posted by sto_vo_kor_2000 on November 8th, 2011 @ 2:36am CST
Capt.Failure wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:One of my biggest problems with these movie is that they aren't Transformers movies.



HAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, you're wrong. Just because you didn't like them doesn't make them not Transformers films.

Funny, you laugh but its obvious that you didnt take the time to read all of his post.

I believe he was speaking more twards the issue that the TF's in the film werent the stars of the film.

He didnt say he didnt like the these films,he was speaking more twards the issue that the TF's in the film werent the stars of the film, and thaqt he didnt like.

You should read things more carfully
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309906)
Posted by TulioDude on November 8th, 2011 @ 11:15am CST
T-Macksimus wrote:NOOOO!!! No No No f'ing NO! Cut them off right now! The first 3, while decent enough, had serious flaws by the end of the last film and releasing more will just add to the continuity sh**-storm that the first trilogy became. Stop them now while they are still on top because continuing the series will just turn it all into a farce and complete and utter crap-fest. Next time around they are going to do something lame like bringing Unicron into the mix or some other b.s. idea. They need to focus on the animated series and toy production and leave the live-action alone for another 5 or so years.


While i do agree they should wait before releasing new movies,i disagree on the whole "the movies are a continuity mess" thing.

Starscreamers wrote:Well... it wood be nice. But they have to change a lot of things, the movies were turned into comedies. The Transformers should be sirius, like the new Batman movies or like The Matrix or Terminator movies.There are too many mistakes in the movies, I could go on and on but I won't.
I vote for James Cameron to take over the next three films and I am positive they will be even more epic then the first three.



Sure the movies had moments that were meant to be jokes,but a comedy movie is a exaggeration,every Transformers series had its jokes.
The Transformers movies are serious.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1309956)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 8th, 2011 @ 12:53pm CST
TulioDude wrote:Sure the movies had moments that were meant to be jokes,but a comedy movie is a exaggeration,every Transformers series had its jokes.
The Transformers movies are serious.
The jokes outweighed the serious moments in these movies. They made fools out of themselves with jokes that weren't funny at all.

And their serious moments were the wrong kind of seriousness. They were dark for the sake of being dark. The right kind of seriousness these movies needed was gravitas, and there's little to none of that in these movies.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1310244)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on November 9th, 2011 @ 2:15am CST
Sabrblade wrote:
TulioDude wrote:Sure the movies had moments that were meant to be jokes,but a comedy movie is a exaggeration,every Transformers series had its jokes.
The Transformers movies are serious.
The jokes outweighed the serious moments in these movies. They made fools out of themselves with jokes that weren't funny at all.

And their serious moments were the wrong kind of seriousness. They were dark for the sake of being dark. The right kind of seriousness these movies needed was gravitas, and there's little to none of that in these movies.


Sometimes I do wonder if the jokes were bad partially doe to the overacting from the people who played the characters [Leo and that Jerry Wang guy were particularly bad ham actors].

But yeah, I personally found some of the jokes inappropriate for the situation, such as that sarcastic quip Meering made when she interrupted Sentinel and Optimus' conversation--the one that went, "...you can't simply bring weapons of mass destruction in our atmosphere. Kinda have to clear customs first, etc."
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1310989)
Posted by TulioDude on November 10th, 2011 @ 4:13pm CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

But yeah, I personally found some of the jokes inappropriate for the situation, such as that sarcastic quip Meering made when she interrupted Sentinel and Optimus' conversation--the one that went, "...you can't simply bring weapons of mass destruction in our atmosphere. Kinda have to clear customs first, etc."


I dont think that was meant to be joke.

Sabrblade wrote:The jokes outweighed the serious moments in these movies. They made fools out of themselves with jokes that weren't funny at all.

And their serious moments were the wrong kind of seriousness. They were dark for the sake of being dark. The right kind of seriousness these movies needed was gravitas, and there's little to none of that in these movies.


I dont know,i wasnt much bothered with the jokes.I was like"A joke.Moving on."I guess its more of a opinion thing than a fact thing.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311157)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 10th, 2011 @ 10:54pm CST
TulioDude wrote:I dont know,i wasnt much bothered with the jokes.I was like"A joke.Moving on."I guess its more of a opinion thing than a fact thing.
The point is that these movies need more gravitas, more sincerity, less college stoner humor, and less unnecessary humans (keep only the necessary humans, a random guy off the side making some wise-cracks for just one scene is not necessary).
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311249)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on November 11th, 2011 @ 4:38am CST
TulioDude wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

But yeah, I personally found some of the jokes inappropriate for the situation, such as that sarcastic quip Meering made when she interrupted Sentinel and Optimus' conversation--the one that went, "...you can't simply bring weapons of mass destruction in our atmosphere. Kinda have to clear customs first, etc."


I dont think that was meant to be joke.


It has to be a joke, at least the last two sentences about clearing customs and that "it's what separates us from the animals" thing. I doubt any sane person actually expects a bunch of Cybertronians to line up at the customs counter to declare their belongings and go through a pat down. And if it wasn't a joke, it was a distasteful, humorless remark.

If she meant that the TF's have to allow humans to check what items they bring to Earth, just say it plain and simple. Trying to make it sound funny by turning it into a joke just annoys me. I can't recall if anyone laughed at that remark in the cinema, [don't think so] but I certainly didn't.

Fact of the matter is, that Meering character has been acting like a two-bit comedienne wannabe from the moment she appeared on screen. In both TF1 and DOTM, there always seems to be a government personnel who acts like they're auditioning for a stand-up comedy gig. IMO besides Jon Voight, Morshower and Banachek, Galloway is the only believable government guy in all three of the movies, because despite his attitude, he doesn't have a habit of acting like Meering and Simmons.

Speaking of Simmons, I like him a lot more as a civilian, because I can believe in a normal guy acting like that. As an agent from a top secret government agency, I doubt his superiors would have tolerated that kind of idiocy.

And yes, I know it's a movie about transforming alien robots, but it's precisely because the premise is so hard to suspend disbelief on that such minor details should be meticulously believable.

Yeah, I know... TL;DR. :lol:

Sabrblade wrote:
TulioDude wrote:I dont know,i wasnt much bothered with the jokes.I was like"A joke.Moving on."I guess its more of a opinion thing than a fact thing.
The point is that these movies need more gravitas, more sincerity, less college stoner humor, and less unnecessary humans (keep only the necessary humans, a random guy off the side making some wise-cracks for just one scene is not necessary).


Totally agree with you there. While it's probably a matter of personal taste, I just don't like that kind of humor in my TF movies.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311345)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 11th, 2011 @ 10:18am CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:And yes, I know it's a movie about transforming alien robots,
I think a more appropriate phrase would be "a movie about a guy whose life features transforming alien robots." ;)
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311362)
Posted by Capt.Failure on November 11th, 2011 @ 11:30am CST
Sabrblade wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:And yes, I know it's a movie about transforming alien robots,
I think a more appropriate phrase would be "a movie about a guy whose life features transforming alien robots." ;)


There's that "It's not a Transformers movie" arguement again. Is it fun living with your head in the sand? Is it at least comfortable?

Seriously, you give the fandom a bad name.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311366)
Posted by Sabrblade on November 11th, 2011 @ 11:36am CST
Capt.Failure wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:And yes, I know it's a movie about transforming alien robots,
I think a more appropriate phrase would be "a movie about a guy whose life features transforming alien robots." ;)


There's that "It's not a Transformers movie" arguement again. Is it fun living with your head in the sand? Is it at least comfortable?

Seriously, you give the fandom a bad name.
Is it wrong to ask for the bots to be the stars of their own movies? I don't get why some people WANT them to shifted into the background. Seriously, they're the most interesting characters in these movies (barring the Twins, that is), and yet they're used more as plot devices instead of main characters.

When watching Batman or Superman, I want to focus on Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent in the prominent role, not James Gordon or Jimmy Olsen. Why can't the same be applied to these movies?
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311479)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on November 11th, 2011 @ 5:28pm CST
Sabrblade wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:And yes, I know it's a movie about transforming alien robots,
I think a more appropriate phrase would be "a movie about a guy whose life features transforming alien robots." ;)


There's that "It's not a Transformers movie" arguement again. Is it fun living with your head in the sand? Is it at least comfortable?

Seriously, you give the fandom a bad name.
Is it wrong to ask for the bots to be the stars of their own movies? I don't get why some people WANT them to shifted into the background. Seriously, they're the most interesting characters in these movies (barring the Twins, that is), and yet they're used more as plot devices instead of main characters.

When watching Batman or Superman, I want to focus on Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent in the prominent role, not James Gordon or Jimmy Olsen. Why can't the same be applied to these movies?


Just my two cents' worth, but I think it's partly because of the expensive CG and because they needed a human to lead the audience into the world of the transformers--that, sadly, being Shia LeBeuf.

That said, there were so many missed opportunities where they could have injected characterization into the TF's. In TF1, they said something about yanking Arcee from the cast because there wasn't enough screen time to explain gender, and Bay hated her small size. The latter, I can accept. But to say that you need a lot of time to explain TF gender is an excuse for laziness.

They could have easily had Optimus, while intro'ing the Autobots to Sam in the alley, explain that Arcee is one of the last surviving females of their species. While TF's don't procreate, females are needed to temper the aggressiveness of male Cybertronians for a more stable society. Megatron sees this as a hindrance to his ambitions of a military society, and thus ordered the killing of all females.

Oh, and please don't shoot me for adding non-canon stuff into TF mythology. Since Bay's deviated so much from G1, why not just run with it?

With that, you actually ADD characterization to Arcee as well as add a deeper layer to the fabric of TF lore, making it more realistic. Also, in order to save money from CG animation, they could just focus on Sam's bewildered face as OP explains everything. Mikaela could even chime in with her disapproval of Megatron's mysogynist ways, and add help flesh out her character [pun not intended] more as the strong female type.

With a little creativity, they could have added loads of characterization to the TF's without digging too deep into the budget.

There are many other areas where they could have done the same, but I don't think there's enough space in this post for it.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311488)
Posted by TulioDude on November 11th, 2011 @ 5:48pm CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:
TulioDude wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

But yeah, I personally found some of the jokes inappropriate for the situation, such as that sarcastic quip Meering made when she interrupted Sentinel and Optimus' conversation--the one that went, "...you can't simply bring weapons of mass destruction in our atmosphere. Kinda have to clear customs first, etc."


I dont think that was meant to be joke.


It has to be a joke, at least the last two sentences about clearing customs and that "it's what separates us from the animals" thing. I doubt any sane person actually expects a bunch of Cybertronians to line up at the customs counter to declare their belongings and go through a pat down. And if it wasn't a joke, it was a distasteful, humorless remark.



I think was the point of her character.To be a douche.

Sabrblade wrote:
TulioDude wrote:I dont know,i wasnt much bothered with the jokes.I was like"A joke.Moving on."I guess its more of a opinion thing than a fact thing.
The point is that these movies need more gravitas, more sincerity, less college stoner humor, and less unnecessary humans (keep only the necessary humans, a random guy off the side making some wise-cracks for just one scene is not necessary).


The whole movie wasnt like that.

Sabrblade wrote:I don't get why some people WANT them to shifted into the background.

He didnt say that.
When watching Batman or Superman, I want to focus on Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent in the prominent role, not James Gordon or Jimmy Olsen. Why can't the same be applied to these movies?

They mostly tell the story of an individual.
I think the problem is you are ignoring others opinions.The movies have flaws?Yes,but that doenst stop them from being enjoyable.

One of the reasons Bumblebee and Sam have much screen time is that Steven Spielberg wanted to tell the story of a boy and his car.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1311499)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on November 11th, 2011 @ 6:13pm CST
TulioDude wrote:I think was the point of her character.To be a douche.


True.

Although IMO even douche bags should know to sober up during serious situations like these. I dunno, it's just hard to believe that someone in her position should lack the diplomatic skills to talk more respectfully to an alien dignitary [Sentinel].

I don't mind that she talks that way to Lennox since he's just a captain and below her pay-grade, but Sentinel, a much-respected elder among the Autobots, is a totally different story.
Re: ILM's Scott Farrar on Transformers 4 (1325810)
Posted by yingxuy on December 21st, 2011 @ 7:53pm CST
Love Transformas film series, but the director said the third one is the end of this series. What a pity!
Do not know whether yours message are true or not, but really hope this film can continue, just looking forword to it!
Transformers Podcast: Twincast / Podcast #98 - Combiner Wars
Twincast / Podcast #98:
"Combiner Wars"
MP3 · iTunes · RSS · View · Discuss · Ask
Posted: Thursday, August 14th, 2014