Michael Bay Says Transformers 4 Will be His Last

[Gaith]

Transformers is a deeply silly idea.

But then, so is the idea that for some reason a Norse God shows up in modern America and teams up with a guy who's good at archery and this other guy who dresses up in patriotic S&M and then someone who is, in effect, a guy in a robosuit and anyway they go fight monsters or some shit like that.

...in other words, yes, Transformers could be done better. If something as inherently ridiculous as Avengers can (allegedly, haven't seen it) get a good movie, then so can Giant Robots Punching Other Giant Robots. Not to be confused with an assertion that Transformers has ever been any good, as much as it's a childhood memory of mine.

Silliness has nothing to do with it. No CG-ed punching robot will ever be as charming as Downey, as soulful as Ruffalo, as earnest as Evans, as regal as Hemsworth... etc. Transformers is an ugly and boring idea, a nonhuman-toy commercial, pure and simple. But given how crappy Bay's movies are, the longer he wastes his time on them, the better, I suppose.

 

[Admiral2]

Yeah, he said 3 would be his last too. Also if they are going to try and reinvent this series then why not have some fresh blood do it with a new Director. There's only so many ways Michael Bay can blow something up.

After seeing how great Joss Whedon handled Avengers, it pisses me off even more how badly the Bay's Transformers movies have turned out.

I think they all turned out great! I watch em on DVD till my eyes bleed.

Naturally, I am very pleased with this news.

 

[hyzmarca]

Transformers is a deeply silly idea.

But then, so is the idea that for some reason a Norse God shows up in modern America and teams up with a guy who's good at archery and this other guy who dresses up in patriotic S&M and then someone who is, in effect, a guy in a robosuit and anyway they go fight monsters or some shit like that.

...in other words, yes, Transformers could be done better. If something as inherently ridiculous as Avengers can (allegedly, haven't seen it) get a good movie, then so can Giant Robots Punching Other Giant Robots. Not to be confused with an assertion that Transformers has ever been any good, as much as it's a childhood memory of mine.

Silliness has nothing to do with it. No CG-ed punching robot will ever be as charming as Downey, as soulful as Ruffalo, as earnest as Evans, as regal as Hemsworth... etc. Transformers is an ugly and boring idea, a nonhuman-toy commercial, pure and simple. But given how crappy Bay's movies are, the longer he wastes his time on them, the better, I suppose.

So you're 100% opposed to all animation, then?

Nah, a good voice actor and good animators can make a character charming. A good voice actor and good animators can make a character soulful. A good voice actor and good animators can make a character regal and earnest.

I think pretty much everything from Pixar proves this.

The problem with the transformers is a failure to actually focus on the transformers as characters.

 

[Gaith]

I think pretty much everything from Pixar proves this.

The problem with the transformers is a failure to actually focus on the transformers as characters.

You're talking to one of the few non-drinkers of the Pixar Kool-Aid, but even there, note how their two worst-reviewed movies just happen to be the ones about machines, without any humans in sight.

(And before anyone brings up Wall-E, remember how large his eyes were. He was as close to a puppy robot as a non-puppy robot could get - and I don't see anyone clamoring for adorable, puppy-like Transformers.)

So, okay, one could imagine a TF movie with better-developed fighting robot characters. Still, the question remains: to what purpose? What themes could CG fighting robots illustrate better than a similar story with people/humanoids?

Sometimes a dumb toy-selling franchise for children is, to paraphrase Freud, just a dumb toy-selling franchise for children.

 

[Garak]

If there's one thing that needs to be rebooted it's Transformers - new cast, crew, the works.

Although I will grant there is some decent eye candy in the films, Michael Bay made 3 fucking awful movies.

 

[Saul]

He also said it will be his last and set the franchise up "for the next guy."

I'm sure "the next guy" will appreciate that rather than being allowed to make the franchise his own which, really, "the next guy" will probably end up doing anyway.

Transformers Reboot in 2015!

So Bay reboots it with T4 and then the next Director reboots again???

 

[Captain Craig]

If there is any franchise where rebooting, er transforming, is a part of the already established lore it's Transformers.

 

[Aldo]

. I really don't know what would bring me to watch this movie this time.

I know what would get me to watch it. Kristen Stewart walking around barefoot. Bazinga!

 

[Goji]

I have no interest in "Transformers" whether they are good or bad, and sitting through the first two films in this series was well and truly painful... but I somehow find comfort in the knowledge that as long as Michael Bay keeps making these movies, no franchise I care about can possibly approach the same level of horribleness.

Keep doing Transformers, Michael Bay. Stay away from... everything else.

 

[Trekker4747]

He also said it will be his last and set the franchise up "for the next guy."

I'm sure "the next guy" will appreciate that rather than being allowed to make the franchise his own which, really, "the next guy" will probably end up doing anyway.

Transformers Reboot in 2015!

So Bay reboots it with T4 and then the next Director reboots again???

Why not? Singer did a soft-reboot of the Superman movies (granted, riding off the origins of STM and SII) and Man of Steel is doing a hard reboot. Unless the studio insists the next director of Transformers can reboot if he wants.

 

[Aldo]

I did enjoy the first one. In fact I loved the hell out of it, Bay felt a tad bit restrained, and we had just enough Transformers in the movie that we got to know each one.

The second one was a typical Bay sequel: overlong, loud, and...well, dumb.

The third one was decent, I actually enjoyed watching it, once. My roommate would put it on whenever he was bored and of course I grew sick of it.

I can't imagnie seeing a fourth one unless the previews looked really interesting.

 

[Admiral_Young]

The first one was great...I saw it multiple times, and still continue to view it. I think what really hurt frankly was Ehren Kruger writing the scripts after Orci and Krutzman left. I have stated this in other threads, Orci and Kurtzman's original treatment for "Transformers 2" was a big epic piece that essentially homaged "Transformers: The Movie" and would have featured a Decepticon civil war that the Autobots and humans would be caught in the middle of. I suspect it was abandoned due to budget reasons. It would have been one of the most expensive movies ever made had it been developed.

Besides which we have Prime to make up for Bayformers!

 

[Kegg]

Silliness has nothing to do with it. No CG-ed punching robot will ever be as charming as Downey, as soulful as Ruffalo, as earnest as Evans, as regal as Hemsworth... etc.

To take this literally:

Robert Downey Jr. as Optimus Prime, Evans as Hot Rod, etc. etc. etc.

But no, in our post-Andy Serkis as Gollum world, there's no reason to assume a CGI performance isn't perfectly good enough for a summer blockbuster. One of the problems with the first Transformers (never saw the sequels) is not that it rests itself on giant robots smashing giant robots, but that it devotes so little space in its running time to those robots and focuses on poorly written and unlikeable human characters.

Optimus himself is pretty much the only robot character in the movie, the other autobots get a handful of lines and IIRC the Decepticons do not even speak English.

And when robots do collide? It's confusing trying to follow the action, in classic Bay fashion.

It does not follow that Optimus Prime (who Peter Cullen has always voiced excellently with sage-like gravitas) would be a terrible protagonist for a film.

Transformers is an ugly and boring idea, a nonhuman-toy commercial, pure and simple.

While Avengers is far above such mere commercial drossery, a film made from deep artistic insight and a profoundly personal story Joss Whedon wanted to share to the world about how a group of marketable superheroes, combined in a pretty row, can increase profit margins exponentially.

 

[Trekker4747]

To say that a non-human main character can't be emotionally connected with is a a bit silly. It's been done plenty of times before in the past in many different ways but, yes, one of the biggest ones is to give the non-human character human-like eyes.

Transformer's biggest problem, however, wasn't that it was hard to "latch onto" the robotic characters it's that they were essentially extras in their own movies and we spent a good deal of time with Sam and his bullshit. Also the Transformers all being mechanical messes of metal that were nearly impossible to tell apart other than the occasional flourishes of color didn't help.

If any future Transformers movie were to "work", and it's possible for it to, the Transformers would need to be made more distinctive looking as individuals and treated as actual characters with separate personalities and identities.

All I got from Bayformers as far as the robot characters:

Bumblebee is yellow, can't talk, and might be retarded.
Optimus has flourishes of red and blue and likes to pontificate and speak in platitudes.
Megatron is all silver and snarls and drools a lot for a robot.

Everyone else was just "mass of metal that pounds on other masses of metal" or "racial/ethnic stereotype bot."

Treat them as actual, "living" and complex characters and a lot could be accomplished. I'm not a fan of the cartoons or their related movies or comics but I'm not a fan of most of Marvel's comic book characters and their movies got me to latch onto them. I didn't dislike the Bayformers movies because I couldn't identify with the Transformers I disliked them because they weren't in it much, weren't treated as actual characters and there was too much bullshit with the humans. And actual, real and annoying true and pure bullshit.

Sam moving into college.
Sam trying to find a job.
Sam's mom apparently has either had a stroke or a lobotomy that prevents her from having any common sense or sense of decorm and rationale. (Seriously, she asks her own goddamn son if he has a huge dick since he's hooked up with two good looking women over the course of several years?!)
John Malcovich likes to play grab-ass with robots.
And... oh yeah evilalienrobotsaretryingtotakeoverearth.

 

[Gaith]

But no, in our post-Andy Serkis as Gollum world, there's no reason to assume a CGI performance isn't perfectly good enough for a summer blockbuster.

Apples and doornobs. Gollum is a humanoid character whose animation in very closely modeled on Serkis' filmed performance, and he also has that big-eyes factor I mentioned above. Unless you're seriously suggesting that a TF movie use similar human-based animation technique, thus looking like thirty-foot Wizard of Oz-style tin men, or those creepy silver-painted mimes who pose for photo ops on tourist-heavy sidewalks, Gollum isn't any kind of useful guidepost here.

Transformers is an ugly and boring idea, a nonhuman-toy commercial, pure and simple.

While Avengers is far above such mere commercial drossery, a film made from deep artistic insight and a profoundly personal story Joss Whedon wanted to share to the world about how a group of marketable superheroes, combined in a pretty row, can increase profit margins exponentially.

I wasn't crazy about Avengers for that very reason; the other MCU films felt much more heartfelt. Still, the heroes had interestingly diverse backgrounds and talented portrayers, and their movie was according leaps and bounds beyond TF1, the only one of that series I've bothered to see.

To say that a non-human main character can't be emotionally connected with is a a bit silly.

Good thing I never said that, then, eh? Because Gromit isn't human, or even all that humanoid. Notice, please, that I didn't even say a non-mammalian main character couldn't be connected with.

 

[Kegg]

Gollum is a humanoid character whose animation in very closely modeled on Serkis' filmed performance, and he also has that big-eyes factor I mentioned above. Unless you're seriously suggesting that a TF movie use similar human-based animation technique,

Fine. Let's not use Gollum.

Let's use Wall-E, who is a robot, empathetic, and doesn't even talk. If it can work without Peter Cullen, it probably ca work with Peter Cullen.

Now one can say Wall-E has big, lovable eyes, and whether or not the Transformers need more expressive eyes to work as film protagonists is one thing (the Bayformers certainly have more expressive faces, including movable lips, when compared to the old 1980s characters).

 

[Gaith]

Now one can say Wall-E has big, lovable eyes, and whether or not the Transformers need more expressive eyes to work as film protagonists is one thing (the Bayformers certainly have more expressive faces, including movable lips, when compared to the old 1980s characters).

"... but"? I could be wrong, b this paragraph seems unfinished.

Now, yes, I did note Wall-E's lovable eyes, but also please note his behavior: he's timid, he keeps a pet, he's cutely OCD, and he spends nearly the whole movie pining after a girl. He's basically a robot boy-puppy in love, and there's only one of him, two if you count Eve. Also please note that Wall-E is a fairy-tale, a fable.

Transformers, OTOH, is about a large number of adult, warrior male robots (with maybe the odd token female) who seem to have no purpose or goals beyond beating the snot out of/murdering other adult, warrior male robots. And their eyes are darned small and inexpressive. They don't seem to have any time for love, or protecting rare plants.

Peter Cullen's talents as a voice actor is not, therefore, terribly relevant. The main factor is the idea of a whole bunch of inexpressive robots beating the hell out of each other over and over and over and over. A good way to sell toys to little boys. A most unpromising concept for a feature film series.

 

[Kegg]

No, that paragraph was finished.

Transformers, OTOH, is about a large number of adult, warrior male robots (with maybe the odd token female) who seem to have no purpose or goals beyond beating the snot out of/murdering other adult, warrior male robots. And their eyes are darned small and inexpressive. They don't seem to have any time for love, or protecting rare plants.

But to turn this on its head: Optimus Prime is Superman-type robot hero figure. He's a wise, sagacious robot leader fighting a vaguely defined Manichean War between Good and Evil. The stakes and severity of the character can work just fine. Humanizing touches for the robots can be pretty obvious: They care about each other (no doubt been through a lot together), they care about the fate of the world they've drawn into their robot war, this species called humans. They could be fascinated by Earth's ecology and evolutionary process so radically different from however the hell Cybertron created a race of machine men, you can do pretty much whatever the hell you want here.

The main factor is the idea of a whole bunch of inexpressive robots beating the hell out of each other over and over and over and over. A good way to sell toys to little boys. A most unpromising concept for a feature film series.

Not sumnmer blockbusters, though. Every year it seems we have guys in spandex punching other guys in spandex. Last year had X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern (whoever he was) Thor (because if you make a film about a Norse God he'd better be a comic book superhero) and Captain America. This year we've the Avengers and The Dark Knight Returns. It's all a lot of rather unreal violence with people with unusual costumes hitting on each other, typically - though probably not exclusively - in city environments.

Robots are just that only... robots. Larger than life characters who punch each other, say bite catchphrases and sell toys.

 

[captcalhoun]

you forgot Amazing Spider-Man, a film about a kid in spandex beating the snot out of a green lizard-man.

 

[Gaith]

Ah, but human/humanoid superheroes are made interesting not merely because they're played by actual actors and look human (though that obviously helps a great deal), but because of their backgrounds and histories, and how those relate to ours. Spider-Man started out as a geeky, awkward teenager, like many of his biggest fans. Cap grew up in the 1930s and fought in WW2, and has the old-fashioned values and perspective to show for it. The mutants in X-Men: First Class are metaphors for civil rights figures. Etc. Etc. Though there are exceptions, many of these characters are interesting even when they're not fighting. Sometimes even more so.

One could, theoretically, invent similarly elaborate Cybertron-based backstories for big-ass robots, but they'd never have the same emotional impact most of us get from seeing a teenage Magneto losing his mother in the Holocaust, because that was a real thing that we can all relate to, without having to filter it through a bunch of fighting-robot backstory.

If you really think that a CG'd Optimus Prime can be anywhere near as interesting as McAvoy was in FC, or that any Transformers movie could ever be as critically well-received as TDK, well... I'd have to disagree.