Matt Reeves also did Cloverfield so that's a plus for me. At the very least, I know he can handle big screen action and character work. And I believe they did that movie on a shoestring budget. The District 9 guy is also another one I think would be a good pick for something like Transformers but would he want to do it, that's the question.
I don't think we should look out for a new director based on what movies they've done before. Yeah J. Cameron had made some masterpieces but his Avatar wasn't great so...yeah.
Is it traditional 2D animated or CG animated? If the latter, it's probably to keep it in the vein of the established visual style of the current movies as it'd be hard to do that in 2D and highly expensive to go live-action for two hours. Plus, if it's going to take place entirely on Cybertron, it gives whomever directs that better overall control. I personally think it's a good choice, especially if they're going CG. I remember watching Wall-E, and with the lighting and textures, thinking,"They could make a really dynamite, Transformers-focused movie on Cybertron like this."
The thing is though it would be just like earth... but metal. Like, there is nothing there that would bloat the budget. Do a 90 minute live action prequel with say a $100-$150 million budget and Paramount would be set. All they would have to do is pay voice actors, that alone significantly cuts the cost from the previous films.
Interesting. You would like a younger Michael Bay that does car action extremely well. Very interesting, thank you for sharing.
my director list: chris miller, phil lord, darren aronofsky, joe cornish, joe johnston, neill blomkamp, edgar wright, peter jackson, sam raimi, alfonso cuaron, andrew stanton, brad bird, robert zemeckis and sam mendes.
Luc Besson would never do it but damn would I welcome that pick. Leon, Nikita, Fifth Element, and the soon to be released Valerian, based off of the graphic novels of the same name. If it's on Cybertron, there's really no reason to make it live action tho'. Like, on Earth, live-action is necessary just to fully incorporate the bots believably into an Earth environment along with flesh and bone organisms. But on Cybertron, you're looking at designing an entire world, it's culture and civilization (not to mention assumed butloads of Cybertronians). It's a benefit to make it animated. Unless you're just making the argument that because it's animated, it's going to be inferior to a live action movie. I hope that's not why you have an issue with it being animated.
Ah christ, here we go again like clockwork. 10 years and 5 movies: new one is about to be released and/or already is released - cue the multiple threads that will be started every few days for the next 6 months featuring polls of new director ideas with lists of reputable and/or "my current favorite" names of directors that would NEVER touch this franchise, and then pages of arguments of why Director X or Y would be great or would suck like there's any chance at all that they would even take the job in the first place... which they won't.
In the list I see Chappie and District 9 are the ones with CG characters with a lot of personalities, so I would say Neil Blomkamp, Guillermo Del Toro is a good pick too.
It's very, very, VERY x infinity doubtful that with the possible exception of Blomkamp and David Ayer that all the others will hop on board. Villeneuve and AG-I made Arrival and Birdman out of hatred for modern sci-fi/action and superhero films.
That's not why I have an issue, I just want it visually to be the same. If they do animated it is going to be vastly different in terms of design. I have no problem with animated movies, I just don't want something that is movie canon to be a completely different format if you get what I'm saying?
Ah it's okay, you're a unique snowflake. No one has ever asked this question or listed out ridiculous poll options umpteen dozens of times before over the last decade, and no one ever will again. Hope it works out for you... because threads like this totally matter and make a difference.
No, I get what you're saying. That's why I asked because I wanted to be sure where you were coming from. That's why I asked also if it's 2D or CG because in 2D, it would be really hard to get the movie design style done right. But in CG, I think they could get it close enough (if not, spot on in fact) where you'd be satisfied.
And cue the pettiness. Sheesh. Movie season is in full effect I see. The fanbase is never more at each other's throats than when a TF movie is out.
Where in my post did I say I was trying to be unique or make a difference? Go eat some more paint chips, child.
Everyone thinks animated means like one of the tv shows. Even if the cgi is photo realistic, if there is no actual video taping, then the movie is animated. It could very well be exactly the same as they look now, but it would be classified as animated since there is no real life camera work.
