Mark Wahlberg Confirms Return to Paramount Transformers 5

Wow. This is wonderful news. I can't wait.

Well, he is much more believable as a hero than Shia was. I will take it vs. the alternative.

I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

And yes, I agree Whalburg's Cade is "better" than Shia's Sam, but in the grand scheme of things, both are interchangeable, and most importantly, expendable.

Slashercon wrote:I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

There's a longstanding prejudice that animation is for children, and since the Transformers in these films are animated works (no matter how "realistic" they might be designed to look), they're viewed less as "characters" than the human actors are, as the human actors are live action and "real" people instead of "fake" cartoon creations.

I have a strong feeling that if the Transformers were real people in armored costumed suits instead of all-CGI, there'd be a better chance of them getting more focal characterization than they do now. Or, if the films were completely animated instead of in live action, then the chance would be even more likely. But then that gets back to the "cartoons are for kids" prejudice, and a lot of moviegoers don't want to watch "kids' stuff", preferring live action films instead, which also brings us back to how CGI characters in live action films aren't viewed in the same light as how live human actors in live action films are viewed.

We Transfans don't feel this same kind of prejudice because we are used to robots as human-like characters, having seen them depicted as such in our cartoons and comic books. The common moviegoer audience, however, is less used to such due to a lack of the same degree of material exposure that we fans have had, as most of that material is viewed as "kids' stuff".

What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

Burn wrote:What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

I quoted this as it's all true, and it's something that a lot lot of people ignore.

You may not like the movies but there is plenty of people out there who did and each film gas made more then they cost to make so they are like golden geese for hasbro.

Ask yourself: how many people would really go and see a humanless tf movie, how many average movie goers would see such a thing

Sabrblade wrote:

Slashercon wrote:I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

There's a longstanding prejudice that animation is for children, and since the Transformers in these films are animated works (no matter how "realistic" they might be designed to look), they're viewed less as "characters" than the human actors are, as the human actors are live action and "real" people instead of "fake" cartoon creations.

I have a strong feeling that if the Transformers were real people in armored costumed suits instead of all-CGI, there'd be a better chance of them getting more focal characterization than they do now. Or, if the films were completely animated instead of in live action, then the chance would be even more likely. But then that gets back to the "cartoons are for kids" prejudice, and a lot of moviegoers don't want to watch "kids' stuff", preferring live action films instead, which also brings us back to how CGI characters in live action films aren't viewed in the same light as how live human actors in live action films are viewed.

We Transfans don't feel this same kind of prejudice because we are used to robots as human-like characters, having seen them depicted as such in our cartoons and comic books. The common moviegoer audience, however, is less used to such due to a lack of the same degree of material exposure that we fans have had, as most of that material is viewed as "kids' stuff".

Sad but true. Even so, Frozen is the highest grossing animated "kids film" of all time, which if you check, made more money than Transformers Age of Extinction. Sure you have to factor in the franchise appeal and PG-13 rating, but it still says something. The main reason why I'm complaining is because I have witnessed great Transformers stories and characters in animated series, comics, and video games. I just want the same love and admiration put into a Transformers movie while properly translating it for a good screenplay. I wish this for a lot of properties, but Transformers more-so.

ZeroWolf wrote:

Burn wrote:What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

I quoted this as it's all true, and it's something that a lot lot of people ignore.

You may not like the movies but there is plenty of people out there who did and each film gas made more then they cost to make so they are like golden geese for hasbro.

Ask yourself: how many people would really go and see a humanless tf movie, how many average movie goers would see such a thing

People can be...for lack of better terms; iggnorant, gullible, and confused at times (people, as in general, don't shoot the messenger because I'm respectfully saying what people HAVE been and CAN be), BUT that doesn't mean that they should be treated as such. People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities? Whether that means actually cutting back on unnecessary "humor" or reversing the amount of screen time each species receives. What I'm saying, is that Hasbro and Paramount can make their cake, make money, and leave with even a higher level of "satisfied" customers (where even critics will give them positive reviews). What they're doing now whoever, is the lazy mundane road where they make money regardless. That what ticks me off too.

Also, I never said that the movies had to be humanless, but take a more subtle approach to human exposure. The Transformer/Human ratio isn't balanced as well as I feel it can be.

PS (I don't like to resort to name-calling, so if anybody is offended by my comments, I apologize, but in this forum I really wanted to get this off my chest about how I feel about the franchise going forward. And when you feel like other don't understand where you're coming from, you get frustrated. So again apologies. )

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

Burn wrote:

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

In your defense, though, AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

Chiming in here, I found Wahlberg's character much more appealing than shia, and I actually very much enjoyed his character. He interacts well with the autobots and he is determined and dedicated, not dramatic. And he had good reasons to fight, and he showed himself a great ally with the ability to actually contribute usefully and intelligently. That and he could pull off the human with alien gun far better than most

Burn wrote:

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

Agreed. Since they are being made to generate money at the box office, they are certainly performing their intended purpose. Pleasing the biggest group of action movie goers is the purpose, not pleasing a handful of toy fans.

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

D-Maximus_Prime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

Yeah, with how long the movie was and all the stuff that was crammed into its story, AOE honestly felt to me like it was two (or even two and a half) completely separate movie scripts that were spliced together. One about the Autobots being on the run and hunted by Lockdown and Cemetery Wind, and one about KSI creating manmade Transformers whom Galvatron secretly manipulates. Then you got the even more vague stuff about the Creators and the Knights which felt like had come from yet another movie script (hence the "and a half" part).

It honestly felt as coherent as TF: Prime's "Darkness Rising" five-parter (which also has a similar "two different stories merged together" feel), and its length rendered it being more of a four-act movie than a three-act one.

Sabrblade wrote:

D-Maximus_Prime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

Yeah, with how long the movie was and all the stuff that was crammed into its story, AOE honestly felt to me like it was two (or even two and a half) completely separate movie scripts that were spliced together. One about the Autobots being on the run and hunted by Lockdown and Cemetery Wind, and one about KSI creating manmade Transformers whom Galvatron secretly manipulates. Then you got the even more vague stuff about the Creators and the Knights which felt like had come from yet another movie script (hence the "and a half" part).

It honestly felt as coherent as TF: Prime's "Darkness Rising" five-parter (which also has a similar "two different stories merged together" feel), and its length rendered it being more of a four-act movie than a three-act one.

Pretty much my opinion too. Lockdown and Galvatron were 2 completely separate story lines that just mangled together and really should have been 2 different movies. both storylines would have benefited from that

There's nothing to suggest that it won't! but if this movie doesn't pick up from where the last one ended.....then i'm gonna be pissed!

btw hopefully we'll get to see Ultra Magnus, Blur & Kup in this one

You missed out Hot Rod

ZeroWolf wrote:You missed out Hot Rod

are we sure he's in it? in fact are we sure any of those will be in it?

Till proper information comes out, your guess is as good as mine.

Michael Bay talked about Transformers 5 during an interview with Rolling Stone magazine regarding his film 13 Hours (about Benghazi). During this talk, he does confirm that he is "doing" Transformers 5, as Mark Walhberg had speculated. The context of these quotes below is Michael Bay revising various special effects done by the ILM team while being interviewed by Rolling Stone :

Between his producing duties and directorial work, Bay usually has a half-dozen projects going at once. Right now, in addition to 13 Hours, he's doing post-production on the next Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which he's producing and which is due in 2016, and pre-production for the next Transformers, which he's directing for summer 2017. "I'm doing Transformers ... 5, is it?" Bay says, temporarily losing track. He shakes his head. "I've taken on a lot of work."

Finally, there's Transformers. They show Bay an underwater rendering of a crash-landed alien spaceship, then a new dump-truck Transformer with a cloak. Neither are up to snuff. "Boy, I've got a lot of work to do," Bay says, shaking his head. "I better finish this fucking 13 Hours movie." He thanks ILM and kills the video link, then turns to me. "It's not good when I'm not involved."

"The movie industry has really changed," Bay says, apropos of nothing. "The middle-[budget] movie is basically gone. They just want these big movies." (The irony of this statement goes unremarked-upon.) "Transformers, I still have a great time. It's fun to do a movie that 100 million people will see. But this is the last one. I have to pass the reins to someone else."

I remind Bay that he said the same thing before each of the last two Transformers movies. "I know," he says. "J.J. [Abrams] told me, 'You're the only guy that could do this.' But it's time to move on. One more."

So can I give up yet? Ive defended the films, but after 4 I just can't handle it anymore, it needs to be rebooted NOT CONTINUED
Yeah money talks. And the lowest common denominator is unfortunately the majority of movie goers nowadays, so pander away I guess.
I liked TF4. While I was watching it. You ever see a movie and think, wow, I suddenly dislike it? That was TF4 for me. 3 wasn't great, and 2 is a generally hated train wreck (wHich I'll admit I enjoy it for what it's worth.)
The first one's the only one I can consistently return to and enjoy, and even then it's VERY flawed. Either return to what made the first one at least the best out of a series of bland movies with okay designs, and good cgi, or reboot it and let a company that gives a crap a shot. Look how marvel's handling its films. Even the bad ones are usually good.

He's never leaving, is he?
I mean, I don't really care since Transformers thankfully offers more than just these movies, but we've been hearing "this is my last one" several times now. Just be done with it already!



But underwater spaceships and cloak-wearing dump trucks. Color me interested.

BeastProwl wrote:So can I give up yet? Ive defended the films, but after 4 I just can't handle it anymore, it needs to be rebooted NOT CONTINUED
Yeah money talks. And the lowest common denominator is unfortunately the majority of movie goers nowadays, so pander away I guess.
I liked TF4. While I was watching it. You ever see a movie and think, wow, I suddenly dislike it? That was TF4 for me. 3 wasn't great, and 2 is a generally hated train wreck (wHich I'll admit I enjoy it for what it's worth.)
The first one's the only one I can consistently return to and enjoy, and even then it's VERY flawed. Either return to what made the first one at least the best out of a series of bland movies with okay designs, and good cgi, or reboot it and let a company that gives a crap a shot. Look how marvel's handling its films. Even the bad ones are usually good.

I think that if they shaved off ~35 mins from the beginning of the movie and the dumb human-on-human fights, and had hired actual writers it could have been a really good movie, but the same could be said of all four of them

Noideaforaname wrote:He's never leaving, is he?

More like, "They're never letting him go, are they?"

I really get the feeling that he'd gladly be done with doing these movies, but the financial success the films keep bringing in keep having the higher ups want to keep pulling him back into doing them.

At this point I think the only way he'd ever finally be let go is if we were to at last get a movie from him that completely bombed at the box office. But audiences keep coming back to see these movies no matter what, allowing the films to keep raking in the big bucks.

So until people finally stop giving their money to these films (which isn't likely to happen soon given the current trend), we're stuck with moneymaking movies that just won't let go of their gold mine Bay.

It's time again... just great.


Time to put on my silver knight Bayformers defender armor and persona.


I hope to actually get into a rational argument/conversation for once and not get called a troll for saying I like the movies.


Anyways construction vehicles with cloaks hmmm...




That you Scavenger old friend?

mirageandjazz1197 wrote:Anyways construction vehicles with cloaks hmmm...




That you Scavenger old friend?

He's like a ninja

I'm more than okay with Bay continuing, just give us a decent screenwriter. That's all I want.

Well that and if Bay is ever replaced they bring in Uwe Boll so all you Bay-haters get what you really deserve.

Burn wrote:I'm more than okay with Bay continuing, just give us a decent screenwriter. That's all I want.

Well that and if Bay is ever replaced they bring in Uwe Boll so all you Bay-haters get what you really deserve.

Yeah, getting rid of Bay won't solve everything. There's still the producers and writers to contend with.

Sabrblade wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:He's never leaving, is he?

More like, "They're never letting him go, are they?"

I really get the feeling that he'd gladly be done with doing these movies, but the financial success the films keep bringing in keep having the higher ups want to keep pulling him back into doing them.

That's the sense I got too.

I recommend the whole article. Like him or not, it's pretty interesting (but does have a minor TMNT2 spoiler).

I'm interested in where they are taking the live action movie series (let's hope the writers room pays off) though I'm really hoping that the creators aren't the quints.

As for bay, it was inevitable that those in charge would want him back, no matter the cost. I just hope all those that dislike him realise he is only a small part of their problems as he doesn't do everything in the movie himself.

I like the movies. But after 4, they are getting samey with the big fights at the end. I want a new director simply to see what someone else would do with them.

its good when he IS involved?

Transformers 5: End of the Universe.


In this installment, Lock down is now a portable restroom who holds the secrets of the TRUE origins of the TF race.

Sabrblade wrote:

Burn wrote:I'm more than okay with Bay continuing, just give us a decent screenwriter. That's all I want.

Well that and if Bay is ever replaced they bring in Uwe Boll so all you Bay-haters get what you really deserve.

Yeah, getting rid of Bay won't solve everything. There's still the producers and writers to contend with.

I agree with all of you. Reading the article sheds Bay in a very interesting light. He doesnt need the money, clearly, and doesnt need to actually work. But the fact that the effects would look bad if he wasnt in charge keeps him there, its interesting. There is also an ego thing going on. And yeah, like all you guys mention, its about the screenwriters. As the article shows, Bay feels the responsibility on the effects and how it looks. That is what he excells at and it shows. But beyond that, there is only so much a director can do with a script, he doesnt even have final cut.

Anyways, Bay is not the problem, and I am pretty certain that if he werent the director of the previous films, they would have been worse. Then again, maybe that would have been better, they would have bombed and maybe a new approach would have been taken Bof, who knows, but its hard to deny that Bat isnt a master of his craft.

I always found this video pretty interesting:

The 'Bayverse' movies are not bad action movies, but they're also not good Transformers movies.

If keeping him involved keeps movies from being 'worse', what if someone else were brought in to make the movies *good* instead?

Insurgent wrote:I want a new director simply to see what someone else would do with them.

I second this. Someone at TFW2005 mentioned that there are no other big movie franchises that have had the same director for five films. Plus, the article makes it sound like he's over-extending himself. Why be sloppy at five things when you could be thorough with one or two? Don't keep making the movies because they "won't be good if you don't," especially when you don't even know that for sure. Let 'em go, dude; you didn't even create the IP of the movies you're most famous for now.

Glarryg

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think TF4 was a huge improvement over 2&3. Losing Shia LeBouef was a HUGE plus. Also losing most of the gutter humor helped as well. Sure I'd love to see another director, but I still think the continuity should continue, NOT be restarted. Like it or not, we are never going to get an Original TF "cartoon" accurate film, and even if we did, it might not translate as well on film as we'd like.

I think the best we can hope for is still an all TF movie with no humans. *Still* holding out hope that someone will make this happen someday.

What other directors would people suggest that aren't locked on other projects that won't run foul of bays problems (you know, like script editing etc..) I'm struggling to think of any that would care enough about what people think are just giant robots beating each other up.

As for the tf movie without humans, sarblade pointed out a few pages ago that we had a TV movie that did just that. General movie audiences probably won't care for a film like that. Unless it's a kids film, though I could see a rescue bots movie doing alright

ZeroWolf wrote:What other directors would people suggest that aren't locked on other projects that won't run foul of bays problems (you know, like script editing etc..) I'm struggling to think of any that would care enough about what people think are just giant robots beating each other up.

Well, since I don't know about the personal day-to-day busynesses that most directors (even Bay himself) have to go through, I don't feel that I could really answer this question since any potential director I could name might fall into the category you speak of without my knowing.

ZeroWolf wrote:As for the tf movie without humans, sarblade pointed out a few pages ago that we had a TV movie that did just that. General movie audiences probably won't care for a film like that. Unless it's a kids film, though I could see a rescue bots movie doing alright

What's more is that a TF movie with no humans would have no real need to be filmed in live action since all the TF characters are CG cartoons anyway. Might as well make the backgrounds and environments animated as well since there really aren't that many films out there that went the route of Dinosaur by having all CGI characters in realistic backgrounds/environments with no human actors.

Yes I know, and as I replied, Predacons Rising was amazing!. But I did specify a theatrical film with no humans. I guess that is where the disconnect is. If I were making a film. I would make a film that would try to appeal to fans, not just the "general" populace. It probably wouldn't be a financial success, but in terms of quality, it would be far better. Of course I would want to fund it myself, so I would not have to rely on a large studios restrictions, but alas, I am not a multi-millionaire, so it will never happen.

Directors not locked in other projects? -Well that pretty much eliminates everyone. That's like asking mid-way through the NFL season who would you want to coach your team that doesn't have a job. But after the season (as in today), there are several vacancies. Of course, there are no directors available today. But making the deal now, or in the near future and having them direct the 6th film, or next spinoff might be viable. Guillermo del Toro comes to mind. Not just because of Pacific Rim, but because he has a love of Japanese robots going back to his childhood as they were very popular in Mexico. I think he would do well bringing out some of the original ideas and personality traits of the transformers that have largely been ignored. Gareth Edwards (depending on how Rogue One turns out), would be another good choice.

ZeroWolf wrote:What other directors would people suggest that aren't locked on other projects that won't run foul of bays problems (you know, like script editing etc..) I'm struggling to think of any that would care enough about what people think are just giant robots beating each other up.

As for the tf movie without humans, sarblade pointed out a few pages ago that we had a TV movie that did just that. General movie audiences probably won't care for a film like that. Unless it's a kids film, though I could see a rescue bots movie doing alright

Guillermo del Toro.


Since Godzilla has killed any chance of Pacific Rim 2, I say let the guy have a crack at the Transformers.

o.supreme wrote:I know I'm in the minority here, but I think TF4 was a huge improvement over 2&3. Losing Shia LeBouef was a HUGE plus. Also losing most of the gutter humor helped as well.

Oh I think you are more the majority than minority. I think the sme way and so did many critics. Its just that they had overrated the previous 2 (giving 2-3 stars on 5 instead of 1) so the improvement didnt show in the scores.

ZeroWolf wrote:What other directors would people suggest that aren't locked on other projects?

JJ Abrams, Roland Emmerich, Joss Whedon, and Justin Lin have all completed their latest projects. I would be happy to see any of their visions. Though a change in screenwriter is far more important than a change in Director.

Also, to those asking if another director has made 5 theatrical films within the same franchise, the answer is yes George Miller. As of right now he has directed 4 Mad Max films and planning the next one. Same as Bay with Transformers. I am surprised people have totally ignored that.

Brad Bird is good at making films with likable characters and fun stories.

Another director who, like Bay, is good at making his films look visually stunning, but might be more of a bold choice since he's not as well known as an action film director but has done some action films, is Kenneth Branagh.

But no Roland Emmerich, please! The guy can't make any other kind of flick beyond disaster flicks, and those are a tired and tried genre already.

william-james88 wrote:

o.supreme wrote:I know I'm in the minority here, but I think TF4 was a huge improvement over 2&3. Losing Shia LeBouef was a HUGE plus. Also losing most of the gutter humor helped as well.

Oh I think you are more the majority than minority. I think the sme way and so did many critics. Its just that they had overrated the previous 2 (giving 2-3 stars on 5 instead of 1) so the improvement didnt show in the scores.

Well that and US Boxoffice for TF4 being the lowest of them all, but World Wide, 2nd. Transformers may be the first franchise that I care about that actually benefits from having a worldwide appeal, and thus sequels will continue, even TF5 grosses less than 200M stateside, if it makes a Billion worldwide, more sequels are all but guaranteed. But still, I would like the films to improve as I think all fans do. TF 4 just seemed to be an indication, that at least in the United States, fans are done with the franchise.

Sabrblade wrote:Another director who, like Bay, is good at making his films look visually stunning, but might be more of a bold choice since he's not as well known as an action film director but has done some action films, is Kenneth Branagh.

HOLY SH!T, I would be so extatic if Kenneth Branagh expressed any interest in this franchise, the thought alone is insane in a fun way. What a left field yet smart suggestion. That guy sure could add some class to this series.

william-james88 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:Another director who, like Bay, is good at making his films look visually stunning, but might be more of a bold choice since he's not as well known as an action film director but has done some action films, is Kenneth Branagh.

HOLY SNOOFENGLOOP, I would be so extatic if Kenneth Branagh expressed any interest in this franchise, the thought alone is insane in a fun way. What a left field yet smart suggestion. That guy sure could add some class to this series.

He did both the first Thor movie of the MCU, and Disney's live action Cinderella from last year, as well.

That name sounds familiar but I can't place it , guessing he mainly does action movies? As for Del Toro. ..I have a lot of work for him to be doing...like working with Kojima, that mountains of madness movie, a super robot movie like the kind he grew up with (live action mazinger z please)

Not sure JJ Abrams style would be that different from Bay.

ZeroWolf wrote:a super robot movie like the kind he grew up with (live action Mazinger Z please)

Hey I'd love to see a live action Mazinger Z, but I figure Transformers is more viable. Yes GDT has a lot of movies he would "like" to make. But ATMOM & PR2 are pretty much no go from a studio standpoint. Sometimes you have to direct the film someone else wants, for every film YOU want. Not saying he would, but unfortunately that is the industry for you.

Also this may be out in field, but what about Nelson Shin? -He directed the 1986 TF:TM, and currently does work on The Simpsons, but his studio has done work in the past with such popular 90's animated series such as Batman:TAS & X-Men. -If he has a solid well-written script. I think there is some potential there.