Michael Bay to direct?

[Metal Vendetta]

http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/s ... #post89814

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000881/

Emotions?

[spiderfrommars]

*deep breath*

.....

*another deep breath*

Okay.... The Rock I admit is a guilty pleasure, but I ******* hate Pearl Harbour and Armageddon with a ******* passion.

Early word has it that The Island will be good, but still... even his best stuff is horribly cheesy.

******* hell. I know I should be happy with such a big name director on the project but I'd rather they gave it to a novice than him to be honest.

*goes and puts on Team America*

[Best First]

The Rock is class.

He can direct action i think, so that's good. Not so sure aboutthe human element.

Not convinced he'll end up doing it anyway.

[spiderfrommars]

Yeah, its not definite of course.

Latest:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Mov ... index.html

[Best First]

"the other by Megatron, which espouses survival of the fittest and the extermination of biological life."

...so he's fighting BM Megs then?

hmm.

[Shanti418]

Never really been a big Bay fan. Bad Boys 2 was especially pants. But they could do a whole lot worse, I suppose.

[Metal Vendetta]

I can see how he'd be a reasonable choice for director, since he's got the experience making action movies and also movies that tie into existing franchises, and I quite like Armageddon and The Rock...

I dunno, it could get a bit DWG1 firetrucks save Optimus for my liking, if you know what I mean.

[Shanti418]

Here's a quote from Greg Schmitz, who does the feature "Greg's Previews" on Yahoo. This is a man who apparently is not a fan of Mr. Bay.

After two years of reports of director "short lists" that usually included Michael Bay and Robert Zemeckis in addition to a few others, The Hollywood Reporter announces today that it is Bay who is officially in talks, with the necessary production start date getting closer and closer. I am disappointed, frankly, and this movie just dropped, nay, *plummetted*, on my own personal anticipation scale. Have most of Bay's movies done fairly well at the box office? Absolutely. Have any of them been accepted as being very "good" by either critics or fans? By my estimation, nope, not by a long shot. Maybe this summer's The Island will be awesome, entertaining, etc. and Bay's first actually good movie. I haven't seen it. I just know I have disliked every single movie he has ever made. Bay's films are loud, oddly lit, too quickly cut (with shaky camera movement at that), and pretty much represent everything I think is wrong with big-budget Hollywood films.

"The Transformers", on the other hand, honestly, legitimately has (had?) a chance of being a really special movie. Just a few days ago, Sin City opened in theaters, and showed us a sort of comics-style action entertainment that totally broke down the barriers of what you expect to see on the screen. That movie *respected* its source material so much you could see the love in every shot. On the other hand, many of the people in Hollywood who are given the reins to comic book (or in this case, toys popularized by comic books) projects whose execution of the adaptation show a clear lack of respect for the source. Now, up until now, the producers have been talking all about "respect", and how they "get" what the fans love about TF. The announcement of Michael Bay makes me serious ask, are you sure? Because hiring Bay makes you look like you really don't get it. Bay's got a lousy track record, and I feel comfortable calling him out on that. I honestly don't think he will deliver a decent "Transformers" movie.

I think this will probably end up being a very "Fast and the Furious"-ish movie, focusing on the human characters (well, that's already been confirmed), so the Transformers will mostly appear as "talking cars and planes" and will probably only appear in robot form briefly. What we *should* get is the opposite, with human characters barely seen, and about 50% of the movie spent in robot form. The truly excellent 1986 animated movie (and the popular TV series) used that formula, and it worked wonderfully, allowing you to get to know many characters without needing to view them through human eyes, as this movie will be doing. Why do the producers feel the need to change the formula? 'Sin City' showed that the fantastic can now be brought to the screen with all of its fantasy intact. You don't have to water down the formula. The formula worked in 1986; it can work in 2005 and 2006. And it worked without Michael Bay.

Interesting, eh? And quite a bit sad. Impressions?

[BB Shockwave]

The Rock was good, Armageddon... well I got tired of it 'cause I saw it after Fifth Element and I dunno how many other movies where Bruce Willis saves the Earth and I was fed up with the guy (funny how much he evolved since then).

Though frankly, a scriptwritir matters more then a director. A director can cut parts but cannot alter the whole concept of the movie...

[spiderfrommars]

Here's a quote from Greg Schmitz, who does the feature "Greg's Previews" on Yahoo. This is a man who apparently is not a fan of Mr. Bay.

After two years of reports of director "short lists" that usually included Michael Bay and Robert Zemeckis in addition to a few others, The Hollywood Reporter announces today that it is Bay who is officially in talks, with the necessary production start date getting closer and closer. I am disappointed, frankly, and this movie just dropped, nay, *plummetted*, on my own personal anticipation scale. Have most of Bay's movies done fairly well at the box office? Absolutely. Have any of them been accepted as being very "good" by either critics or fans? By my estimation, nope, not by a long shot. Maybe this summer's The Island will be awesome, entertaining, etc. and Bay's first actually good movie. I haven't seen it. I just know I have disliked every single movie he has ever made. Bay's films are loud, oddly lit, too quickly cut (with shaky camera movement at that), and pretty much represent everything I think is wrong with big-budget Hollywood films.

"The Transformers", on the other hand, honestly, legitimately has (had?) a chance of being a really special movie. Just a few days ago, Sin City opened in theaters, and showed us a sort of comics-style action entertainment that totally broke down the barriers of what you expect to see on the screen. That movie *respected* its source material so much you could see the love in every shot. On the other hand, many of the people in Hollywood who are given the reins to comic book (or in this case, toys popularized by comic books) projects whose execution of the adaptation show a clear lack of respect for the source. Now, up until now, the producers have been talking all about "respect", and how they "get" what the fans love about TF. The announcement of Michael Bay makes me serious ask, are you sure? Because hiring Bay makes you look like you really don't get it. Bay's got a lousy track record, and I feel comfortable calling him out on that. I honestly don't think he will deliver a decent "Transformers" movie.

I think this will probably end up being a very "Fast and the Furious"-ish movie, focusing on the human characters (well, that's already been confirmed), so the Transformers will mostly appear as "talking cars and planes" and will probably only appear in robot form briefly. What we *should* get is the opposite, with human characters barely seen, and about 50% of the movie spent in robot form. The truly excellent 1986 animated movie (and the popular TV series) used that formula, and it worked wonderfully, allowing you to get to know many characters without needing to view them through human eyes, as this movie will be doing. Why do the producers feel the need to change the formula? 'Sin City' showed that the fantastic can now be brought to the screen with all of its fantasy intact. You don't have to water down the formula. The formula worked in 1986; it can work in 2005 and 2006. And it worked without Michael Bay.

Interesting, eh? And quite a bit sad. Impressions?

He's hit the nail on the head IMO.

[Best First]

i agree.

i feel the exact opposite of how i felt when i found our Rami was getting Spider-Man.

[Brendocon]

The truly excellent 1986 animated movie (and the popular TV series) used that formula, and it worked wonderfully, allowing you to get to know many characters

Entire argument undermined.

I've no idea who Greg Schmitz is, but he seems to be under the impression that Bay directing means he's also writing the story and the script.

Sure, he gets to decide how it's visualised, but he'll be working from somebody else's instruction manual. Rogers and the two guys from Alias are the ones to blame if characterisation and story are non-existant. Bay only gets the blame if it looks crap and the actors put in rubbish turns.

[spiderfrommars]

Empire have reported on it:

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news ... s_id=16684


There have been rumours about for some time now, but it has been confirmed – Michael Bay is in serious talks to direct the live-action version of Transformers. That's right – the man who has made sweet music of car chases and things blowing up is to make something of a career-switch, by making a film full of (we're guessing) car chases and cars turning into robots and things blowing up.

Readers of a certain age will remember the Transformers as toys that cunningly transformed into other toys, that looked a lot like the first toys in most cases but were clearly distinguishable to the trained eye. There were two tribes among the robots / cars / tape recorders, which also starred in a series of comic books, cartoons and animated films. One group, the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime, respected the humans with whom they share this world, while the evil Decepticons, led by Megatron, were fervent Darwinists who believed in the survival of the fittest and despise humanity.

This new film is to be live-action, with CGI transformations (think that Citroen ad), and is based on a script written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who in turn based it on an idea that Steven Spielberg came up with. Kurtzman and Orci, who also worked on The Island with Bay, pitched the idea to the director to get him onboard. The film is already scheduled for release on November 17, 2006, the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. So the pressure is on for Michael Bay to find some orange skies and big trucks that can transform into robots pretty darn quickly, for what could be one of the biggest films of next year.

[Kaylee]

He's not quite as stylistic a director as I would hope for. I'd much prefer someone with a strong vision of hows things should look that is distinctly his own, rather than a generic action movie director (which is what we seem to be getting).

Ho hum. I liked the Rock anyway. Probably more to do with Connery though, much as I find him a rather dislikeable character irl at very worst he makes movies which are very watchable.

Still no official word from that smug sneering git Murphy on this? {wow, I really dislike him o_O maybe I should buy a stress toy... }

[Metal Vendetta]

Empire have reported on it:

...Readers of a certain age will remember the Transformers as toys that cunningly transformed into other toys, that looked a lot like the first toys in most cases but were clearly distinguishable to the trained eye.

Readers of Terry Pratchett will recognise that quote and spot the lazy journalism from Empire.

[Obfleur]

I honestly think Michael Bay would make great action scenes - but other than that.. well, I don't think he could pull of a 'Transformers'feel or whatever the hell you would like to call it.

But who do you want to direct the movie?

My bizarre thoughts;
Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind) seems to have great imagination and vision (and he directed Everlong, for Foo Fighters I think).

Marc Forster - Finding Neverland.

Terry Gilliam - he's done a lot of weird, and diverse stuff. Might be to old and not 'get' Transformers though?

Kevin Smith, Trey Parker, Tim Burton.

Or some unknown dude?

[Dead Head]

I think this will probably end up focusing on the human characters (well, that's already been confirmed), so the Transformers will mostly appear as "talking cars and planes" and will probably only appear in robot form briefly. What we *should* get is the opposite, with human characters barely seen, and about 50% of the movie spent in robot form.

The above is a salient point. The film is already totally 'lost' (artistically, not commercially) if they've decided to spotlight the token good-looking human lead characters. Agh.

If I had my way, then the human lead playing Witwicky would be squished by Megatron five minutes into the movie, a la Samuel L. Jackson in "Deep Blue Sea". Hah. Then the story could focus on those pesky stranded Cybertronians.

[Kaylee]

Well worst case scenario the film ends up totally human oriented, following a gang (probably of teenagers) who help the Autobots ala Thunderbirds 'Smug All American Family Save the Day' The Movie.

"No you can't go on this mission, its too dangerous."
"Awww."
{Kids stow away anyway and somehow savelife the universe and everything}
"We owe you our thanks children!"
"Thanks Optimus!"

{is sick in corner}

[Metal Vendetta]

Well worst case scenario the film ends up totally human oriented, following a gang (probably of teenagers) who help the Autobots ala Thunderbirds 'Smug All American Family Save the Day' The Movie.

Teenagers in wheelchairs. Each of them from a different ethnic background (yet the white guy is still the main character, of course).

No, my main fear is that they will look to the DW comics (which were very successful), pick the most commercially successful series (G1V1) and base the movie on that.

*vomits*

[Best First]

can people please stop vomiting on the board?

Its uncouth.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Id rather see a WW movie if they were going to go with a DW line.. of course they would probably use Micromasters instead.

[Scraplet]

Spielberg is moochin around in the background - I've still not forgiven him for AI -
'Oi, Speilberg, stop prattin about, take the helm and show us that you can still do big SF-stylee monster summer blockbuster with feeling AND a good ending'.

If its gonna be done from a human perspective for mass consumption, at least he has proven that he can do it and develop the central non-human(s).......maybe him producing will ensure this happens, no matter who directs. And then it might just be ruined by a s##t ending like AI!

[Orion Pax]

Bay? I think I'm going to be sick.

Prime will all of a sudden go from being a truck to Will Smith.

It's going to be mostly digital anyways so why not go with someone who's been using digital for years like Rodriguez. But then again it is Dreamworks and things usually get screwed up with them.

[Snowcat]

Well worst case scenario the film ends up totally human oriented, following a gang (probably of teenagers) who help the Autobots ala Thunderbirds 'Smug All American Family Save the Day' The Movie.

"No you can't go on this mission, its too dangerous."
"Awww."
{Kids stow away anyway and somehow savelife the universe and everything}
"We owe you our thanks children!"
"Thanks Optimus!"

{is sick in corner}

So Armada, then?

[Kaylee]

Well worst case scenario the film ends up totally human oriented, following a gang (probably of teenagers) who help the Autobots ala Thunderbirds 'Smug All American Family Save the Day' The Movie.

"No you can't go on this mission, its too dangerous."
"Awww."
{Kids stow away anyway and somehow savelife the universe and everything}
"We owe you our thanks children!"
"Thanks Optimus!"

{is sick in corner}

So Armada, then?

No no no. More like Armada with some robots in it

[Autobloke]

No no no. More like Armada with some robots in it

There were robots in it?
Which Armada were YOU watching?

And shouldn't this topic be: 'Michael Bay too direct'?