Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

vegetacron wrote:The point of it is, 'Why didn't Tolkien quit after The Hobbit?"

If he had, we'd have people wondering why he didn't write more novels like we do with poor Ms. Harper Lee.

Ok. Think about this.

Tim Burton.

Can you imagine how freaking cool a Tim Burton-style Transformer would look? Can you imagine all the crazy awesome sets on a Burton-influenced Cybertron? Can you imagine Johnny Depp as Optimus Prime?

No, but he would make for an interesting Optimus Prime.

give JJ abrhams IDWs inflitration trade and let him loose.

problem solved.

(TBH it'd probably be inflitration and esclation put together with a bit of tweeking, but THAT would be a decent TF film )

i actually think bay is the perfect director for TF.

he just shouldnt be able to be involved in any other area of the flim besides that

him aside maybe john favreau could give it a shot. iron man was alright and cowboys Vs aliens looks pretty good.

As far as I'm concerned, Bay totally shat on the TFs.If he had not been shat on in turn for the so-called failure of Rotf, I insist his attitude towards the actual TFs would not have changed very much at all. Although I DO like the movies, and have zero hatred of Rotf, I have a lot of gripe at how the TFs were mismanaged in name and place (I like most of the designs just fine).

A while ago, I had read a very old book called Emile. It's an antiquated work now, discussing pretty much the reinvention of the Education system as a scientifically monitorable occurence after the renaissance had run its' course and left its' new outlook behind it.
It stated, and I paraphrase, that if a country child and a city child are both left in a room of affluent decor and atmosphere, the country child can be expected to touch nothing, whilst the city child can be expected to begin to touch everything, and eventually begin to break some items in the room.
For whatever reason, once I read that, I was immediately very concerned that Bay would sabotage the films so nobody could pick up where he left off easily, especially after the total removal from the map, the total wiping off from the face of the planet, of Mikaela, Jolt and the Arcees (and now the Twins). I called it.I agree with those who believe it (this version of sabotage) has been attempted with the ending of DotM.

I totally understand that this film line is not G1, and now that I have learnt to know that,I honestly feel things are better this way.Like very many I hope to see more films in continuum of these 3 and I personally think reboots are just a very bad and dangerous idea unless Hasbro/Hollywood is smart enough to collect several independant reboot scripts and then collect only the very best aspects of each and put them into one film or saga.

Quickly, I want to state that I understand exactly how biased and even cruel I sound here.Call me bigoted, but I didn't start it.I have read all the discussions (that I found) regarding the attitude of the fan base and our consideration to be owed something.Even if we are not owed something (which I maintain as debateable since I continue to argue that we carried the TFs through from the 80s to today, making our relationship with TFs longer and experience deeper) it is others who nevertheless have the recognised qualifications to assemble storylines.It is obvious that we should respect their places in this community,but we,too, should be considered worthy of note whenever we criticise something they do, positively or negatively. I have read the warnings about how fanwank stories will only please fans and possibly trash the films.I totally understand and have no counterarguments.These warnings are very legitimate,

BUT Michael Bay has not done a good job with the TF product, according to plenty of TF fans, debates on the defenition of fan not withstanding(All are one).
By rearranging so much, he has wrecked many of the (traditionally foreseeable) follow-ups to the TF mythos,thereby sabotaging the greater expansion of a single line of films into what at this time has a life expectancy (Unicron or Reboot) unless it is handled with caution for the next few phases.
I strongly believe that Michael Bay worked this out, during the Rotf 'aftermath' when he wrongly killed off his praise of this just fine film, flawed where he ordered a script and ignored it to shoot for his edit.He worked out we DO like his work,but it was too late.

Therefore, let me see many directors directing many TF films. If Michael Bay is allowed to do whatever he wants, so are the rest. I suspect the storyline will be better for it.I insist that the overall layout of the 3 Bay films is absolutely ripe for multidirectionalist expansion by new blood.(Comics are not new blood, nor is a Hasbro policy from last year or last decade,nor is Steven Spielberg).

Yes, there are writers to point at.The director knows how to read and has a diploma qualifying him to judge a script.Bay chose not to go with TFs-his greatest success-yet did choose to go with the scripts-the matter still under disussion today.He knows how to remind everyone that he is the Boss, but when does he actually take charge?Is it correct to say that he saw holes and let them be as long as he was getting his way elsewhere? Furthermore, Hasbro is the overall employer.If there was ever a moment that they should have stepped in to reign things in, it appears that they just stood by instead.

J.J. Abrams would be a really good director for Transformers 4.

The 4th would have to be a reboot, though, since Megatron, Shockwave, Starscream, Soundwave, Barricade and Ironhide all die.

Other good directors:

Neill Blomkamp (I know I spelled his last name wrong. Sorry )
Jon Favereau (I spelled that wrong too)
Robert Rodriguez

prowl123 wrote:J.J. Abrams would be a really good director for Transformers 4.

Other good directors:

Neill Blomkamp (I know I spelled his last name wrong. Sorry )
Jon Favereau (I spelled that wrong too)
Robert Rodriguez

Throw enough money at them and I think either of these two would be a good fit (although in all honesty, I think McG or Ratner would be more likely candidates than Favreau).

The 4th would have to be a reboot, though, since Megatron, Shockwave, Starscream, Soundwave, Barricade and Ironhide all die.

Not necessarily. Barring resurrections - which wouldn't be a first for the Bayverse - just bring in similar characters. Megatron, Shockwave, Starscream and Soundwave could easily be replaced by movie versions of Galvatron, Cyclonus and Scourge, with or without the latter group's "usual" origins (Unicron). Heck, they could probably even afford to jump the movie timeline 15 to 20 years ahead to boot - it's not like the actual year 2005 proved to be anywhere near as futuristic as G1 made it out to be anyway.

Heck, they could probably even afford to jump the movie timeline 15 to 20 years ahead to boot - it's not like the actual year 2005 proved to be anywhere near as futuristic as G1 made it out to be anyway.

I totally agree!

I don't know about the director, since I really never notice who directs movies, but I do think it'll be fairly easy to make another. I honestly think the ending was changed because they didn't want to really "end it". Maybe they already have someone?

zenosaurus_x wrote:I think Peter Jackson would do great with it, I've liked everything I've seen him do so far.

As big a fan as I am of Jackson, I'm not sure if one can compare giant apes and elves with giant transforming mechanical beings.

Granted, he puts his all into whatever he's doing and he doesn't skim on teh character development, so I'd love to see him do it.

And frankly, he can't do a worse job then Bay. I loved the first one, hated the second one, and tolerated/am contented with the third. I think the franchise, the fan base, and the general public deserved a lot better than what we have been given.

As far as reboot? Why not a pre-quel kind of thing, a darker, more morbid story set on a dying world? And just because characters were killed off, doesn't stop them coming back, Megatron died in the first one, and Prime in the second, its not like its out of the range of reality for these guys to suddenly up and start functioning again.

The Dude wrote:Ok. Think about this.

Tim Burton.

Can you imagine how freaking cool a Tim Burton-style Transformer would look? Can you imagine all the crazy awesome sets on a Burton-influenced Cybertron? Can you imagine Johnny Depp as Optimus Prime?

Oh hell no

Autobot-Hellstriker wrote:As long as a competent director can make a good alternate franchise then i wouldn't care much about who would be chosen.

But as long as it won't be M.Night Shyamalan, the foolish man who humiliated "Avatar: The Last Airbender" series with his movie version.

That wasn't humiliation. That was murder.

Jaw Crusher wrote:Throw enough money at them and I think either of these two would be a good fit (although in all honesty, I think McG or Ratner would be more likely candidates than Favreau).

I certainly hope not. CA: FT was awful and Terminator Salvation was just so-so, the latter being McG's best effort yet, which isn't saying much.

Ratner? The Rush Hour movies ranged from passable to pointless. Personally, I think he's several rungs below Bay, which isn't saying much either.

Capt.Failure wrote:The ultimate irony, of course, will be when the Bayhaters get their messiah figure in the form of a new director and what he directs will be nothing like Transformers. I don't mean the superficial things like new designs or slightly more human emphasis that Bayhaters complain about. I mean total obliteration of everything that makes Transformers what it is for the sake of the director's "artistic vision."

You can imagine it based on the director you chose:

Nolan - Gritty realism for realism's sake. Expect Transformers to be human constructs and not Cybertronian: no sparks, no Matrix. Expect Nolan to turn characters into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot elements.'

Snyder - Brown n' bloom, gritty as hell, ultraviolence, even more shallow characters than the Bayverse. Also SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOspeedup!SLOOOOOWMOOOOOOspeedup!.

Spielberg - The main cast is a group of kids all 12 or younger. The Transformers don't have speaking rolls and are all cutesy and have a total 1 minute of screentime. Also Optimus Prime survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge and Shia Lebouf is still in it somehow.

Lucas - Mind blowing visuals on an epic scale, adds unnecessary "scientific" explanations for the mysterious aspects of Cybertronian life (mitichlorians, much?). Will be fine at release but get rereleased 20 times, each new cut worse than the last until everyone hates it.

Abrams - No plot, no lore, just a sequence of events that will make no sense unless you religiously followed the Alternate Reality Game that was active in the years leading up to the film's release. It's also all a dream, except when it's really time travel.

Basically what I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and regret it. Then you'll be begging for Bay to return.

yep that sums up all those directors accurately, but sadly we got all those negative elements in the three bay movies

- into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot element
America rocks, violence is the only way, blow **** up are bays views and reflected in movies

- shallow characters ala snyder. Could you make more shallow characters than the bay bots. Ultra violence, you substitute humans for transformers and you are looking at 18's for the bay flicks

- the bots aside from bee, prime and megs, had about one line each, if any.

- no plot, sequence of events. You saw rotf right. But you need to read the comics, expanded universe to knwo what happened to jolt, bees voice etc

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:The ultimate irony, of course, will be when the Bayhaters get their messiah figure in the form of a new director and what he directs will be nothing like Transformers. I don't mean the superficial things like new designs or slightly more human emphasis that Bayhaters complain about. I mean total obliteration of everything that makes Transformers what it is for the sake of the director's "artistic vision."

You can imagine it based on the director you chose:

Nolan - Gritty realism for realism's sake. Expect Transformers to be human constructs and not Cybertronian: no sparks, no Matrix. Expect Nolan to turn characters into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot elements.'

Snyder - Brown n' bloom, gritty as hell, ultraviolence, even more shallow characters than the Bayverse. Also SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOspeedup!SLOOOOOWMOOOOOOspeedup!.

Spielberg - The main cast is a group of kids all 12 or younger. The Transformers don't have speaking rolls and are all cutesy and have a total 1 minute of screentime. Also Optimus Prime survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge and Shia Lebouf is still in it somehow.

Lucas - Mind blowing visuals on an epic scale, adds unnecessary "scientific" explanations for the mysterious aspects of Cybertronian life (mitichlorians, much?). Will be fine at release but get rereleased 20 times, each new cut worse than the last until everyone hates it.

Abrams - No plot, no lore, just a sequence of events that will make no sense unless you religiously followed the Alternate Reality Game that was active in the years leading up to the film's release. It's also all a dream, except when it's really time travel.

Basically what I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and regret it. Then you'll be begging for Bay to return.

yep that sums up all those directors accurately, but sadly we got all those negative elements in the three bay movies

- into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot element
America rocks, violence is the only way, blow **** up are bays views and reflected in movies

- shallow characters ala snyder. Could you make more shallow characters than the bay bots. Ultra violence, you substitute humans for transformers and you are looking at 18's for the bay flicks

- the bots aside from bee, prime and megs, had about one line each, if any.

- no plot, sequence of events. You saw rotf right. But you need to read the comics, expanded universe to knwo what happened to jolt, bees voice etc

I couldn't agree more!

well its made 399 million already so i reckon were gonna get another one, whether its a full reboot or not i dont know but those figures are just too high for the studios to ignore.

be fun to see who gets the gig.

the laugh now is in the beginning no one was interested and bay had to be badgered into it.

now the studios will be turning people away left right and centre till they get someone they trust with this behemoth.

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:The ultimate irony, of course, will be when the Bayhaters get their messiah figure in the form of a new director and what he directs will be nothing like Transformers. I don't mean the superficial things like new designs or slightly more human emphasis that Bayhaters complain about. I mean total obliteration of everything that makes Transformers what it is for the sake of the director's "artistic vision."

You can imagine it based on the director you chose:

Nolan - Gritty realism for realism's sake. Expect Transformers to be human constructs and not Cybertronian: no sparks, no Matrix. Expect Nolan to turn characters into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot elements.'

Snyder - Brown n' bloom, gritty as hell, ultraviolence, even more shallow characters than the Bayverse. Also SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOspeedup!SLOOOOOWMOOOOOOspeedup!.

Spielberg - The main cast is a group of kids all 12 or younger. The Transformers don't have speaking rolls and are all cutesy and have a total 1 minute of screentime. Also Optimus Prime survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge and Shia Lebouf is still in it somehow.

Lucas - Mind blowing visuals on an epic scale, adds unnecessary "scientific" explanations for the mysterious aspects of Cybertronian life (mitichlorians, much?). Will be fine at release but get rereleased 20 times, each new cut worse than the last until everyone hates it.

Abrams - No plot, no lore, just a sequence of events that will make no sense unless you religiously followed the Alternate Reality Game that was active in the years leading up to the film's release. It's also all a dream, except when it's really time travel.

Basically what I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and regret it. Then you'll be begging for Bay to return.

yep that sums up all those directors accurately, but sadly we got all those negative elements in the three bay movies

- into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot element
America rocks, violence is the only way, blow **** up are bays views and reflected in movies

- shallow characters ala snyder. Could you make more shallow characters than the bay bots. Ultra violence, you substitute humans for transformers and you are looking at 18's for the bay flicks

Sentinel wasn't shallow, neither was Megatron, or Optimus.

shamone wrote:- the bots aside from bee, prime and megs, had about one line each, if any.

Starscream in ROTF and DOTM had more than one line, so did Sideswipe, Ratchet, Ironhide, The Fallen, Wheelie, Jazz, Barricade (He only had like 2 though. It's still more than 1.), Brains, Dino (Another 2 liner), Que, Sentinel Prime, Soundwave, Lazerbeak, Frenzy, Skids, and Mudflap. They all had more than 1 line.

shamone wrote:- no plot, sequence of events. You saw rotf right. But you need to read the comics, expanded universe to knwo what happened to jolt, bees voice etc

Too bad ROTF did have a plot. Allspark gives Sam Cybertronian knowledge, he doesn't know how to read it, they try to figure out what it means and ends up getting Optimus killed, so he has to figure out what these symbols mean while he has the death of Optimus on his shoulders, and it turns out the symbols point him to the key to save earth from The Fallen.

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:The ultimate irony, of course, will be when the Bayhaters get their messiah figure in the form of a new director and what he directs will be nothing like Transformers. I don't mean the superficial things like new designs or slightly more human emphasis that Bayhaters complain about. I mean total obliteration of everything that makes Transformers what it is for the sake of the director's "artistic vision."

You can imagine it based on the director you chose:

Nolan - Gritty realism for realism's sake. Expect Transformers to be human constructs and not Cybertronian: no sparks, no Matrix. Expect Nolan to turn characters into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot elements.'

Snyder - Brown n' bloom, gritty as hell, ultraviolence, even more shallow characters than the Bayverse. Also SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOspeedup!SLOOOOOWMOOOOOOspeedup!.

Spielberg - The main cast is a group of kids all 12 or younger. The Transformers don't have speaking rolls and are all cutesy and have a total 1 minute of screentime. Also Optimus Prime survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge and Shia Lebouf is still in it somehow.

Lucas - Mind blowing visuals on an epic scale, adds unnecessary "scientific" explanations for the mysterious aspects of Cybertronian life (mitichlorians, much?). Will be fine at release but get rereleased 20 times, each new cut worse than the last until everyone hates it.

Abrams - No plot, no lore, just a sequence of events that will make no sense unless you religiously followed the Alternate Reality Game that was active in the years leading up to the film's release. It's also all a dream, except when it's really time travel.

Basically what I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for. You just might get it and regret it. Then you'll be begging for Bay to return.

yep that sums up all those directors accurately, but sadly we got all those negative elements in the three bay movies

- into self inserts to spout his socio-political beliefs alongside tons of faux cerebral plot element
America rocks, violence is the only way, blow **** up are bays views and reflected in movies

- shallow characters ala snyder. Could you make more shallow characters than the bay bots. Ultra violence, you substitute humans for transformers and you are looking at 18's for the bay flicks

Sentinel wasn't shallow, neither was Megatron, or Optimus.

shamone wrote:- the bots aside from bee, prime and megs, had about one line each, if any.

Starscream in ROTF and DOTM had more than one line, so did Sideswipe, Ratchet, Ironhide, The Fallen, Wheelie, Jazz, Barricade (He only had like 2 though. It's still more than 1.), Brains, Dino (Another 2 liner), Que, Sentinel Prime, Soundwave, Lazerbeak, Frenzy, Skids, and Mudflap. They all had more than 1 line.

shamone wrote:- no plot, sequence of events. You saw rotf right. But you need to read the comics, expanded universe to knwo what happened to jolt, bees voice etc

Too bad ROTF did have a plot. Allspark gives Sam Cybertronian knowledge, he doesn't know how to read it, they try to figure out what it means and ends up getting Optimus killed, so he has to figure out what these symbols mean while he has the death of Optimus on his shoulders, and it turns out the symbols point him to the key to save earth from The Fallen.

- out of a cast of how many TF's, you say 3 were not shallow. And how much dialogue did megs get in last flick or screen time to develop

- I said about one line each. and you agree by saying they had minimal lines. That was point i was making

- again the plot was there to service the effects and locations. They wrote them selves in too many corners and then had to produce deus ex machina to get them out of it. Now that may be result of writers strike buts it rings true for me

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Jaw Crusher wrote:Throw enough money at them and I think either of these two would be a good fit (although in all honesty, I think McG or Ratner would be more likely candidates than Favreau).

I certainly hope not. CA: FT was awful and Terminator Salvation was just so-so, the latter being McG's best effort yet, which isn't saying much.

Ratner? The Rush Hour movies ranged from passable to pointless. Personally, I think he's several rungs below Bay, which isn't saying much either.

Precisely why I think they'd be more likely to be involved in TF than Favreau or Abrams.

Jaw Crusher wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Jaw Crusher wrote:Throw enough money at them and I think either of these two would be a good fit (although in all honesty, I think McG or Ratner would be more likely candidates than Favreau).

I certainly hope not. CA: FT was awful and Terminator Salvation was just so-so, the latter being McG's best effort yet, which isn't saying much.

Ratner? The Rush Hour movies ranged from passable to pointless. Personally, I think he's several rungs below Bay, which isn't saying much either.

Precisely why I think they'd be more likely to be involved in TF than Favreau or Abrams.

sad but true

with bay they have seen that they dont need a world class director to get bums on seats, so im sure they wont be hanging out to get the top guys who might be difficult to work with the studios, you know the ones who might not toe the party line and that (not saying bay is like that, but he would be easier to work with, in terms of corporate vision, than directors from indy backgrounds)

hence a ratner or a mc g

Brad Bird!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He obviously knows how to make a glorious movie with giant robots (the iron giant), and is great with action so far. MI: Ghost Protocol will tell how he handles live action, but if it's like he does with animated movies, then he's perfect! Of course, this will require a reboot, as Sam would probably be replaced with someone more Hogarth's age like the Iron Giant. Also, the robot cast should be cut if you really want character development.

I've mentioned it in other threads but I would love Tony Scott to take over. He comes from the same Bruckheimer school as Michael Bay.

Hey guys I'm back I'll take Neil Blomkamp who ever they get it has to be someone who can make CGI emote. That's one of the many things Bays fails at and why there are humans in his movie.

shamone wrote:

Jaw Crusher wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Jaw Crusher wrote:Throw enough money at them and I think either of these two would be a good fit (although in all honesty, I think McG or Ratner would be more likely candidates than Favreau).

I certainly hope not. CA: FT was awful and Terminator Salvation was just so-so, the latter being McG's best effort yet, which isn't saying much.

Ratner? The Rush Hour movies ranged from passable to pointless. Personally, I think he's several rungs below Bay, which isn't saying much either.

Precisely why I think they'd be more likely to be involved in TF than Favreau or Abrams.

sad but true

with bay they have seen that they dont need a world class director to get bums on seats, so im sure they wont be hanging out to get the top guys who might be difficult to work with the studios, you know the ones who might not toe the party line and that (not saying bay is like that, but he would be easier to work with, in terms of corporate vision, than directors from indy backgrounds)

hence a ratner or a mc g

That sounds so plausible it's scary.

Seriously, there's little to no chance I'll ever pay to watch a TF movie directed by Rattner or Mc G.