Transformers 4 - Reboot or Not?

Well. If Oscar-worthy actor, Josh Duhamel isn't doing it, what chance does this movie have of being any good?

Ha!

The title of this news is a bit misleading.

SJ21 wrote:Well. If Oscar-worthy actor, Josh Duhamel isn't doing it, what chance does this movie have of being any good?

Ha!

I might slag off a lot of things in the movies, but Duhamel isn't one of them. Granted if it is a reboot, it'd make little sense for him to be in it, but he and his soldier boys were the best GI Joes we've gotten in a Hasbro film so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CclzA5Ib ... AAAAAAAAAA

this is a link to clevver movies a youtube channel. it states it is not going to be a prequel or a reboot, it will be a sequel and that it will focus more on action then stupid comedy. plus less humans.

craggy wrote:

SJ21 wrote:Well. If Oscar-worthy actor, Josh Duhamel isn't doing it, what chance does this movie have of being any good?

Ha!

I might slag off a lot of things in the movies, but Duhamel isn't one of them. Granted if it is a reboot, it'd make little sense for him to be in it, but he and his soldier boys were the best GI Joes we've gotten in a Hasbro film so far.

For real. Transformers 2007 was a better G.I. Joe movie than G.I. Joe was.

"Josh Duhamel doesn't know if any of the human cast is returning" isn't really "reboot confirmed." I mean, have Bay and co. even started working on TF4 yet? I thought he was doing Pain and Gain first, so not doing anything Transformer-related wouldn't really mean anything.
Still WAY too early to make any type of conclusions.

freetouch wrote:

craggy wrote:

SJ21 wrote:Well. If Oscar-worthy actor, Josh Duhamel isn't doing it, what chance does this movie have of being any good?

Ha!

I might slag off a lot of things in the movies, but Duhamel isn't one of them. Granted if it is a reboot, it'd make little sense for him to be in it, but he and his soldier boys were the best GI Joes we've gotten in a Hasbro film so far.

For real. Transformers 2007 was a better G.I. Joe movie than G.I. Joe was.

Totally have to agree with that. I think having the combination of Josh and Tyrese in the films was what made some of the scenes not just tolerable but actually enjoyable. I don't think anybody else could have pulled off that scene of "ejecting" the Defense Director out of the back of the C-130 in RotF quite as well.

Like I said before, it's just too darn soon to do a re-boot, especially with the same team of Bay and Spielberg calling the shots. This is going to be a suck-fest and this is coming from someone who has been open minded throughout the whole Movie Series.

I'd prefer them to do a cinematic animated movie, maybe using a cel-shaded look, or at least, cgi in 3D. I don't know how well Star Wars Clone Wars went down, but it seems to have been quite successful in spawning an ongoing animated tv show.

It could be based on Cybertron (a Prime prequel? Everyone loves a prequel!) or something brand new, or what have you. Could even be G1 inspired, taking place in the 80s (hell of a lot easier to draw the 80s than it is to make the real world look like the 80s, nowadays) or in the future to grab some of that anime/manga crowd as well?

This article has been updated with this video:


And consquentially, retitled. I suppose we are all going to experience this type of conflicting information for, uhm, the next couple of years!

Vicalliose wrote: Cars don't sell movies, movies sell cars. .

Not true at all. while yes, movies help sell cars, it works both ways. Part of the reason i got excited for these movies were the alt modes of many of the vehicles. So yes, being a car person, the cars were part of the driving factor for me and many others to see this movie.

Vicalliose wrote:Which is another thing that irritates me about people in general. People go out and buy expensive cars because they were in a movie and they were cool. Then they end up with a truckload of debt because they dropped more cash than sensible on something that's meant to get them from point A to point B, but that's going into a whole different world of BS, so I'll stop there.

This is a problem with society, and not with fancy cars being in movies. And i really hope your not insisting that this is in any way the car manufactuer, Paramount, Hasbro or Bay's fault. Cause its not.

Vicalliose wrote: It would help if they didn't outright choose grey and black for the majority of the characters. One of the biggest complaints against the films is how hard it is to distinguish anyone..

To be honest, to this day i've never had a problem distingwishing any of the bots from each other.

Vicalliose wrote:I'm pretty sure Bay pockets most of that extra cash. He should be getting plenty of funding from Paramount and I've seen other movies which do not smother us with product placement pull of effects as good as his. I just find it weird that his films make it feel like GMC is the only car company in the world.

Now this is what really gets me fired up. Because you don't approve GM products being used in the movies, you asume that bay pockets the money that was given to help fund the movie. Bay doesn't pocket the extra cash that sponsors give. Its used in the budget of the movie. If the movie is succesfull, then he (along with many others) get to reap the benifits. I like the alt modes and they didn't take anything away from the movie for me so i don't have a problem with it. The fact that other movies have done product placment different is irrelevent. Those weren't transformers. There computers didn't nearly crash attempting to animate characters and ships from the film.

GetRightRobot wrote:This article has been updated with this video:


And consquentially, retitled. I suppose we are all going to experience this type of conflicting information for, uhm, the next couple of years!

Your absolutely right.
The fact is we really don't have any real solid info to go on and proabbaly won't for at least a year. Many saw re-imagining and imidiately are assuming it meant re-boot.

Vicalliose wrote:Which is another thing that irritates me about people in general. People go out and buy expensive cars because they were in a movie and they were cool. Then they end up with a truckload of debt because they dropped more cash than sensible on something that's meant to get them from point A to point B, but that's going into a whole different world of BS, so I'll stop there.

During the hype of the first movie, I invested both time and money into a Sunday driver. I have always had a second vehicle for play and sensible vehicle for that A to B thing. Just as many people do it responsibly as irresponsibly:

is that your camaro? coz damn, thats sick.

Also, Gi joes WAS a better movie than any TF movie, so THERE!

Was that a vector I saw a few pages back? coz I was tottaly thinking a vector would be right for HotRod... it'd be cool to know someone else was on the same page as I.

Is buying cars because they were in the movie really any different than buying toys because they were in the movie?

MINDVVIPE wrote:is that your camaro? coz damn, thats sick.

That is indeed my Daizy. Yes, it is called Daizy. My wife named her (Z-28). Ofcourse when I found out BB was gonna be a Camaro of that body style, I had a little work done. It's the wrong year ('79), but still one of the, IMO, ugliest Camaro's ever made! BUT SHE MAKES UP FOR IN FUN FACTOR!

Noideaforaname wrote:Is buying cars because they were in the movie really any different than buying toys because they were in the movie?

My problem is the fact that the cars seemed to have more screen time than the bots. But then, I felt that was the case with every element taking up more screen time.

I would have really liked to see more scenes like in DOTM where bee transforms to bot mode mid drive and then back to vehicle mode on the highway. Good example here would be that scene.. which is like... rescue scene..compared to this scene:

blurprime2579 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CclzA5IbtTI&feature=g-u-u&context=G2e5cf35FUAAAAAAAAAA

this is a link to clevver movies a youtube channel. it states it is not going to be a prequel or a reboot, it will be a sequel and that it will focus more on action then stupid comedy. plus less humans.

Where have we heard that before

Really though, all you have to do to make a decent TF movie is make it about the Transformers. It's that simple. Hell, look to 1 and 3, which had about 45 mins to an hour of an actual TF movie. Cut out the stupid American Pie-esque humor, get rid of Shia the Beef, use more characterization on the TF's, do something similar to the last hour of DOTM, a really big epic battle at the end. I like the designs of the movieverse, never bothered me. But a decent movie can be made, there hints of a decent movie in 1 and 3.

Who am I kidding though. Bay is coming back. And for those who think the writers had more stroke than Bay, go back and watch the "special features"(quotes cuz they were nowhere near special) on the ROTF dvd. Bay is the reason Devastator got wrecking ball testicles. I can almost guarantee that we'll be in for more of the same: indecipherable mindless action; some fake plastic chick that can't act that Hollywood tries to sell as hot(both Megan Fox and Rosie Long-Last Name are hideous); some no talent hack of a lead actor who's sophomoric antics of trying to get the "hot" female lead will make up half of the film while the other half will be a military recruiter's wet dream; and the titular characters, the Transformers, will be reduced to background props at best. And to those who defend this formula to the summer blockbuster popcorn movie(oh how I loathe that phrase) because Transformers is a toyline/cartoon/comic book/whatever: look to the recent run of films based on similar source material. Good movie can be made, we don't have to settle for the horse sh!t shoveled down our throats.

Noideaforaname wrote:"Josh Duhamel doesn't know if any of the human cast is returning" isn't really "reboot confirmed." I mean, have Bay and co. even started working on TF4 yet? I thought he was doing Pain and Gain first, so not doing anything Transformer-related wouldn't really mean anything.
Still WAY too early to make any type of conclusions.

Truth. I don't think any of them know anything at this point. A script hasn't even been started yet so how would they know cast? The only thing that's been mentioned is some ideas have been thrown around between Bay and Spielberg about 'reimagining' the franchise, which is VERY vague. But if LeBoof doesn't return and they actually keep those previously killed dead, well no shit it has to be reimagined! Doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be rebooted, much less be any different than the previous movie-verse other than some new characters introduced and a lame 30 second story writing off Sam...

D-340 wrote:Where have we heard that before

Really though, all you have to do to make a decent TF movie is make it about the Transformers. It's that simple. Hell, look to 1 and 3, which had about 45 mins to an hour of an actual TF movie. Cut out the stupid American Pie-esque humor, get rid of Shia the Beef, use more characterization on the TF's, do something similar to the last hour of DOTM, a really big epic battle at the end. I like the designs of the movieverse, never bothered me. But a decent movie can be made, there hints of a decent movie in 1 and 3.

Who am I kidding though. Bay is coming back. And for those who think the writers had more stroke than Bay, go back and watch the "special features"(quotes cuz they were nowhere near special) on the ROTF dvd. Bay is the reason Devastator got wrecking ball testicles. I can almost guarantee that we'll be in for more of the same: indecipherable mindless action; some fake plastic chick that can't act that Hollywood tries to sell as hot(both Megan Fox and Rosie Long-Last Name are hideous); some no talent hack of a lead actor who's sophomoric antics of trying to get the "hot" female lead will make up half of the film while the other half will be a military recruiter's wet dream; and the titular characters, the Transformers, will be reduced to background props at best. And to those who defend this formula to the summer blockbuster popcorn movie(oh how I loathe that phrase) because Transformers is a toyline/cartoon/comic book/whatever: look to the recent run of films based on similar source material. Good movie can be made, we don't have to settle for the horse sh!t shoveled down our throats.

D-340, I bet you made IG-88 proud just now.

T-Macksimus wrote:

freetouch wrote:

craggy wrote:

SJ21 wrote:Well. If Oscar-worthy actor, Josh Duhamel isn't doing it, what chance does this movie have of being any good?

Ha!

I might slag off a lot of things in the movies, but Duhamel isn't one of them. Granted if it is a reboot, it'd make little sense for him to be in it, but he and his soldier boys were the best GI Joes we've gotten in a Hasbro film so far.

For real. Transformers 2007 was a better G.I. Joe movie than G.I. Joe was.

Totally have to agree with that. I think having the combination of Josh and Tyrese in the films was what made some of the scenes not just tolerable but actually enjoyable. I don't think anybody else could have pulled off that scene of "ejecting" the Defense Director out of the back of the C-130 in RotF quite as well.

Like I said before, it's just too darn soon to do a re-boot, especially with the same team of Bay and Spielberg calling the shots. This is going to be a suck-fest and this is coming from someone who has been open minded throughout the whole Movie Series.

Wow. I was unaware of the fandom's rabid following of Mr. Duhamel.

Seriously though, that was just the first thing that went through my mind when I read the news article. The name Josh Duhamel hardly carries the kind of weight that would confirm the existence of a new movie, especially when he only said that certain people weren't going to be in it.

I think it's more that I try to focus on the good things in those films and there were so few, that they really stand out.

one of the few good actors in the series and hes probably not going to be in it, if cutting him means a potentially good movie than so be. the way the headline was titled i thought they were going to pull a G1 3rd season or Beast Wars/Beast Macjines style reboot, same universe new characters &/or location. Rather have a total redo, really hope the transformers look like transformers this time around and is actually based in reality not in a reality where a car goes into a blender then comes out a giant robot.

Like anybody else who probably just looked at this I skipped to the last page and assumed that everyone has already stated something along the lines of what I'm about to haha. Bay said on his website that its going to be a reboot of the whole franchise and I heard that the only 2 for sure characters are going to be Optimus and Bumblebee which means that it could go a million different ways. I think starting with new human characters would be a good thing mainly because you can change up the whole way that the Autobots and Decepticons make their way to Earth. Either way I'm stoked for a 4th film reboot or not.

I say:
Reboot and emphasize more on the bots and less on the humans. Give the transformers vehicle modes that have more to do with their g1 counterparts and bring some BW characters in. The last movie seemed rushed and was not done with much love.

While I'm happy to hear about the possibility of a reboot, I'm not happy about Michael Bay returning. It just seems to me that rebooting is pointless with Bay still at the helm. I enjoyed Duhamel in the trilogy, as well as some of the other major actors, so I'm sorry to see them go, but I guess it wouldnt make much sense to have the same actors in a reboot. I'll probably miss Shia the most, I really thought he played a fantastic Witwicky.

Savage wrote:While I'm happy to hear about the possibility of a reboot, I'm not happy about Michael Bay returning. It just seems to me that rebooting is pointless with Bay still at the helm. I enjoyed Duhamel in the trilogy, as well as some of the other major actors, so I'm sorry to see them go, but I guess it wouldnt make much sense to have the same actors in a reboot. I'll probably miss Shia the most, I really thought he played a fantastic Witwicky.

Totally agree. Hearing the phrase reboot is meaningless with Michael Bay directing.

Reboot it, make it totally digital (who cares about human actors), bring unicron and don't call it transformers 4. Call it... transformers the (new) movie?

AutobotCliffjumper wrote:The last movie seemed rushed and was not done with much love.

Yeah, ROTF was pretty bad, you may have missed the third movie called Dark of the Moon. Despite underusing Shockwave, I really enjoyed it. For me it found the perfect balance between human and Transformer action.

Personally, I don't mind if the movie isn't a continuation of the other movies. Everyone gets bogged down in sequels that they can become boring and tired looking. We have to move past the fact that a movie franchise by the same director and crew doesn't have to relate to past movies created by them.

Reboot - ok, sequel - ok.

Honestly, I would like to watch a movie where autobots and decepticons were not described as good and evil but rather the cybertronian versions of athenians and spartans.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Now this is what really gets me fired up. Because you don't approve GM products being used in the movies, you asume that bay pockets the money that was given to help fund the movie. Bay doesn't pocket the extra cash that sponsors give. Its used in the budget of the movie. If the movie is succesfull, then he (along with many others) get to reap the benifits. I like the alt modes and they didn't take anything away from the movie for me so i don't have a problem with it. The fact that other movies have done product placment different is irrelevent. Those weren't transformers. There computers didn't nearly crash attempting to animate characters and ships from the film.

I specifically mentioned that I doubt he would have necessarily needed that money to finish the film. Bay does product placement flooding in all his films, whether he needed the money or not, it's just his thing. Remember this guy was a music video director in his early days, product placement was his job.

Also no. I'm not impressed that his computers nearly crashed rendering that stuff. Another production came out back in 09 with effects that were just as impressive as his movies, and I do not recall seeing GM or Pepsi cans all over the friggin place in that film. Here's a hint: It wasn't Avatar.

GetRightRobot wrote:During the hype of the first movie, I invested both time and money into a Sunday driver. I have always had a second vehicle for play and sensible vehicle for that A to B thing. Just as many people do it responsibly as irresponsibly:

Well, I'm saying that people (allot of people) that straight up can't afford the cars go out and buy them on credit. Again though, Cruiser is right, I was speaking as it being a problem with society. My family only buys old used cars, because that's what we need, I've been raised to believe credit cards are for convenience and nothing more, if you can't pay it off fast don't do it, etc. Besides I'd rather spend my spare money on computers.

I'd rather spend my spare money on Transformers.

Vicalliose wrote: I specifically mentioned that I doubt he would have necessarily needed that money to finish the film. Bay does product placement flooding in all his films, whether he needed the money or not, it's just his thing. Remember this guy was a music video director in his early days, product placement was his job.

Product placement is a part of life. Thats just something your going to have to accept at some point or another. You may not like it, but its spit down your throat the second you walk out the door. You see a Chevy emblem and a mountain dew bot and you act like there forcing you to buy a vehicle that you can't afford.

Vicalliose wrote:Also no. I'm not impressed that his computers nearly crashed rendering that stuff. Another production came out back in 09 with effects that were just as impressive as his movies, and I do not recall seeing GM or Pepsi cans all over the friggin place in that film. Here's a hint: It wasn't Avatar.

Avatars visuals weren't impressive. We've seen the exact same thing several years prior and it was done far better. Here's a hint: It wasn't Pirates of the Caribbean.
The visuals in TF had not been done. The complications in the animations had not been done to that complexity in any other movie. All this was done on a limited budget. speaking of budget, Avatar had 3 times the budget at around $450 million vs. transformers at $150 million.

Vicalliose wrote:Well, I'm saying that people (allot of people) that straight up can't afford the cars go out and buy them on credit. Again though, Cruiser is right, I was speaking as it being a problem with society. My family only buys old used cars, because that's what we need, I've been raised to believe credit cards are for convenience and nothing more, if you can't pay it off fast don't do it, etc. Besides I'd rather spend my spare money on computers.

People buy alot of things on credit that they can't afford. Not just cars. Houses, clothes, house hold items etc. I completely agree that if you can't afford it then don't buy it. But just because you see someone rolling down the road in a $50K car, doesn't mean they are living beyond their means either. You like computers and thats were you spend your extra money. That's cool. Others may invest in cars, or their house, clothes, shoes, sports, tools, etc.

Reboot or not? Dear gawd I hope so!

After reading all the posts I think I'm coming to terms with whatever they do at this point. Just keep making Hasbro money, be successful with the general populace so there can be a larger variety of product (hopefully) which will undoubtedly satisfy more people than otherwise. I can't argue against that.

Can't say I didn't see it coming, but I can't say I'm not excited. Bring on TF4!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sidqNezpjAw

Found this video advertising the 3 transformers films, and for me thats why there is a number 4! But not sure though looking at this video if the 4th needs Shia to work? I mean they got rid of Megan and in my opinion it got worse?

This one is terrified of a bayformers 4. Please let it be a reboot with a new director, like Del Toro or the guy who did Real Steel or a lava lamp!

Jetstreamx wrote:This one is terrified of a bayformers 4. Please let it be a reboot with a new director, like Del Toro or the guy who did Real Steel or a lava lamp!

No.

Jetstreamx wrote:This one is terrified of a bayformers 4. Please let it be a reboot with a new director, ...

Its not getting a new director so get over it already.

I maintain that DOTM was a GREAT second half movie.

Problem?

The first half was a mess and in large part due to the Megan Fox/Michael Bay/Steven Spielberg fiasco.

Had all the dramatics not happened. We wouldn't have had to deal with the first half of the movie trying to sell us on Sam/Carly instead we would have likely gotten a better first half movie.

Ehren Kruger had it all written. I hope that script with Mikeala still in tact gets leaked at some point. Would be interesting to see what was different.