When the current series does end, I'd have to say that Par/DW would have no choice but to reboot the series since most people will probably get old of the current style pretty fast. But I don't think that a director like James Cameron should (or would even be interested in doing) direct a reboot because then you wouldn't be giving lesser-known directors a chance. I'd rather have a director like Louis Leterrier (The Transporter 1&2, The Incredible Hulk, and Clash of the Titans) direct a film in a franchise like this. Do you agree with me, or would you rather have a big name director?

 

What the franchise needs is a director who both understands the characters, the story, and who is willing to do them both justice. Directors like Michael Bay don't give a flip about Transformers, other than them making money.

There's so much more depth, and back story that could be brought out, and one of the best ways to accomplish this is with a prequel film.

If one could be produced without getting entrapped with issues that were rampant on films like Star Wars, then a solid foundation upon which to build could be established with a single prequel, and then move on from there.

I think that that's really where Bay should have begun. It would have really helped the G1 fans to connect in a better sense to the films, as well as introducing new fans to the mythos of the Transformers universe.

Many have previously stated that a prequel would cost too much money, but I think that any cost would be offset by the earnings of the film itself.

It would also save tens of thousands in location costs, as well as eliminating second and third tier production units.

I'd really like to see a new director take the helm of this franchise, and do so with a prequel. I believe that it would just open so many possibilities for the films to begin with a movie, maybe loosely based upon WFC.

It would really do the G1 era justice, as well as tie in both continuities.

 

Tell that to the studios, the director can't just say "HEY WE'LL MAKE A PREQUEL", the studios don't hold faith on a 1-billion-dollars-worth [that's how much it would cost] prequel set on Cybertron, no matter how famous the franchise is. They want something safer. Hollywood is no fairy tale world, sadly.

I personally think, it doesn't matter if the director is famous enough, it matters only if he's a good storyteller or not [Bay varies on this, give Bay a good script and he'll give you an excellent story, give him a sucky script he'll make it ten times worse], I think Gore Verbinsky is the ideal choice, he can be both "brainy" and dramatic [Rango] as he can be blockbuster [POTC films].

Though I think Bay still should be producer, he knows how do deal with the cost-issues, has contacts all over the world [see why they let him film on the pyramids, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg..], he just knows what the hell he's doing.

I say Gore Verbinsky, an "Pirates of the caribbean: At world's end"-esque TF movie would be quite epic.

 

Hmm, that's a tough question. On one hand, we all have to start somewhere if we want to get a chance to make yourself known. But on the other hand, if you owned a company and you want to be successful,you're gonna want the big name directors, perhaps not so much the name recognition, but for their qualifications that made them big name directors(i.e.storytelling, special effects, all that good stuff.) It's like applying for a college or university. They're gonna want the most qualified people to get in. That means 4.0+ with a smattering of extracurricular activities to boot.

However, I probably want to add that it's all up to the director in question. If you're gonna want to make a movie based on a successful franchise, then you better make your resume as sexy as possible. In my opinion, you don't sit around making movies that bomb at the box office and expect to be picked for something like as big as Transformers. There are exceptions to that rule, but I stand by this.

 

True.

 

That one billion dollars that you quoted is incorrect. A Visual effects director has already stated that the price tag for a CGI rendered film would run 200-250 million for the entire film, not including paying the directors, producer, and voice cast. That's just for the CGI rendering itself.

ILM has already created a series of engines that have seen their own developmental evolution over the past decade that are more than capable of handling the work load and design challenges of the film.
If not TF, then another film will get picked up just because it is possible.

When a budget director receives an estimate that has no physical production cost, no location costs, ext. then they are more likely to move forward with the project.

When you take into account not having to rent trailers, hotels, caterers, prop and costume, armorers, security personnel, cameras and camera crews, transportation; the list just goes on and on.

Now you and others on here may have your own personal reasons for not wanting a CGI prequel, and that's perfectly fine, that's your personal opinion, but the plausibility for the film is there.

It may never get produced, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to do so. There are people, some on this forum, who scoffed at the idea of a live action film, then stood in line to buy a ticket to see it. So I expect the same will occur if a CGI based film ever does appear.

 

I just don't think there's anything interesting about a WFC film.

 

There are different kinds of CGI, a lot of different kinds, these robots cost MUCH more than normal CGI, these movies, live-action, already cost 200-250 on themselves, on Cybertron we would have at least 500-700 million to put it mildly, think it through, every single civilian seen on Cybertron would require to be a fully-modelled Protoform, appearing for far more than five seconds on-screen [like DOTM protoforms did].

Every single civilian would have a ridiculous level of detail, every single wall and corridor would have a ridiculous level of detail.

I doubt it, The Driller of DOTM alone required the entire array of computers of IML, and it took the entire time of production of DOTM to render his scenes, IML is clearly not ready for a full-on Cybertron prequel.

Of course it will, by a company who is willing to bet a billion dollars on one movie alone. Hasbro/Paramount aren't that company.

It isn't, as I said, it's not as much about "making its costs back" but about the company lacking faith enough in a fully-CGI movie [with no human actors to "attract the crowd"] that would cost as Hell. the odds are just too high [in the mindset of the companies].

Personally, I'd absolutely love a CGI prequel, but there's no way in Hell a company like Paramount/Hasbro, lovers of blockbusters, would even attempt.

Now you only need to convince Paramount.

 

Co-signed. Although I'm in favour of a reboot instead of a prequel or sequel.

 

If a big name director can make the reboot successful,why not!

 

If we get a big named director then they would likely attempt to stamp their brand on the franchise even if their style didn't fit. So one relatively new though doesn't really have a style to protect yet so I think a lesser known director would take the risks that the more established directors would avoid.

Finding a director with a passion for the material and a willingness to work with others wouldn't hurt either. Or a director who's itching to break out of the genera they have been placed in. Before Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson was mostly just known for a low budget zombie film and the failure of The Frightners, but we see how passion and breaking out of the mold worked there.

 

I don't care who directs Transformers as long as he actually grew up watching the original 80s episodes, that's it

 

Expect him to produce something as shallow as they were, then.

 

The problem is, even IF the script calls for a lot of detail/story/history for the robots, a director can ultimately cut, alter or shorten these sequences. And the sad truth really, is that even if we had a new director who knew the franchise and wanted to 'do it justice' has to realize that the vast majority of the fans of the films are quite happy having the Autobots as side-characters, nameless Decepticons and humans as the saviours of our planet.

Transformers doesn't really lend itself to movie-making as well as Speilberg says - unless you alter it to be like any other generic Invasion film, and then it works. The only real difference between that there are some invaders that are good and can talk our languages.

 

The director must, whether he be "big" or "small", have a connection to the characters and the concept of Transformers. To make a truly special film, a director must be willing, able, and driven to produce "THEIR" film, something that is a personal expression and statement. Thus, to produce a specatular Transformers film, a director must be able to make something personal using the Transformers. This doesn't necessarily mean the director must be a longtime fan, but it does mean it requires a director who can invest themselves in the Transformers concept and it's history, and use it to bring out what ideas they're trying to express through the medium of film.

Without this, the results will be superficial, self-aggrandizing, or dismissive of the core of the Transformers concept.

 

True there are fans who just don't give a damn if other fans got anything they were looking for as long as the movies make a dollar or two.

But places like Pixar have been making money while giving people story and character so I have to hold out some vain hope that if one day we could find a production team that gave a damn about the robots as more than just metal killing machines then story, character and profit could live happily together.

While Transformers might not be the easiest property to adapt to the big screen Transformers does contain some fairly universal themes like civil war or comrades in a strange land far away from home that could be exploited. Or even a chance to exploit the fear people have these day of not really knowing where the enemy is or when they might strike.

 

Reboot directed by Christopher Nolan and produced by Peter Jackson.

Boom.

I love you.

 

I don't think that a director who mainly works in the psychological thriller genre would want to do something like Transformers.

 

To get that budget that makes the Transformers look the way they do, they need a big name director because the suits aren't going to trust just anyone with that kind of cash and expect gold.

Someone mentioned Verbinski. I can go with that definetly (tho' I think Bay will deliver on TF4).

 

I think what you are describing is something that only fans want. I think the box office takes for all three movies back up the idea that the general public wants a bunch of action bogged down by as little story as possible.

Look at the way Disney's John Carter movie is currently tanking. What are the two biggest complaints we've seen?

1. Too much exposition, detailing a complicated backstory the audience couldn't connect with.

2. Not enough action

I don't agree with either of those complaints, but hey, I'm a fan of the original novels.

I think that to a certain extent, TF fans have to come to terms with the idea that between what fans would be interested in seeing in a TF movie and what the general public will be interested in shelling out money for, there is only going to be a certain amount of overlap. And the maximum potential overlap is probably not too much greater than what we've already gotten.

Also, about the saving "tens of thousands of dollars" thing, that's like lunch money for a production like this.