Michael Bay Says No to 'Transformers 3' in 2011
Filed under: Action, Deals, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
Yesterday Paramount -- obviously acting with itchy trigger fingers -- went ahead and set a tentative date for Transformers 3 to hit theaters on July 1, 2011 so that they could lock down that oh-so-important date during a summer that's beginning to look like it may go down as one of the biggest and most anticipated on record. But while Paramount secured their date, they didn't necessarily secure their director or their cast -- and now Michael Bay has gone on record saying he ain't interested in the gig if they want to turn it around that quickly. Here's what Bay said on his own message boards (after previously saying that he'd like to take a year off from big giant robot wars): "I said I was taking off a year from Transformers. Paramount made a mistake in dating Transformers 3 - they asked me on the phone - I said yes to July 4 - but for 2012 - whoops! Not 2011!!! That would mean I would have to start prep in September. No way. My brain needs a break from fighting robots."
So if the studio really wants Michael Bay to direct the third Transformers film (and why wouldn't they -- he might not be the best director, but in my opinion he's the best director for this particular property), then they're going to have to push it to summer 2012. Will they push, or will they hire someone else? Is it that important to have Transformers 3 in 2011? Or will Paramount hold onto the date and switch out Transformers for something else?
What do you think: Would you want another director handling Transformers? If so, who?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-17-2009 @ 2:37PM
Alexspivey said...
Ridley Scott, jk
Reply
3-17-2009 @ 2:41PM
vegimorph said...
part of me says steven spielberg but he has plenty on his plate already. michael bay's done some good work with the first movie and the second one looks great. the studio should move the date to 2012 because rushing a filmmaker of pretty much any caliber is a bad idea. there have been one or two exceptions like George Lucas with the original star wars or robert zemeckis with back to the futuer part 2 and 3 but i mean, look how much directing those two are doing now
Reply
3-17-2009 @ 3:14PM
ppk said...
who would be better well let's see...
how about...
Steven Speilberg (he is a producer of the series)
or
James Cameron(he does do good with robots with making sequels that are better than the original see T2 or Aliens)
Zach Snyder
Sam Rami
Renny Harlan
Bryan Singer
Guilermo Deltoro
Jon Favrau
Hell with how bland I thought the first Transformers was I'd even be willing to see it directed by the "Twilight" chick, at least she knew how to keep a movie compelling without relying on CGI and explosions.
Now don't get me wrong I didn't think Transformers was a flat out 0 star effort but it just didn't jump into my all time faves list (which it pretty much had a free pass too just by nature of my love for the source material). The reason I didn't like it is mostly because it didn't live up to its potential. Here let me give a short metaphor, imagine a child who is brilliant and attractive and ends up being the valedictorian coming out of high school (that's the Transformers franchise), then imagine that child graduating top of the class from college (that's Transformers pre-production with Speilberg, Jon Voight, John Turturro, Peter Culen, and even Michael Bay attached)but then after college all the child grows up to do, with all the opportunities and brains in the world, is become a 7-11 night manager. That is the kind of under performance I saw in the first Transformers... I'm holding out hope for number 2 but after the showing of number 1 I don't think Michael Bay earned himself a "It's your franchise, you rule card" like Chris Nolan did with Batman. So basically I'm saying if Mike wants to take the year off let him there are literally thousands of directors out there and I'm sure several hundred of them could be as good and if were lucky maybe even better. So bring on that guy who directed the latest Geiko commercial you know the one with the executive about to fall on our poor lizard friend during a trust game... just kidding...kind of
PPK
Reply
3-17-2009 @ 3:10PM
Scott K. said...
"That would mean I would have to start prep in September. No way. My brain needs a break from fighting robots."
This is new information. Who knew he used his brain in the first movie? (I liked the first movie, but it was definitely mindless entertainment.)
Reply
3-17-2009 @ 3:35PM
Matthew Mac said...
It's Bay's baby; they'd be idiots not to wait. However you feel about the first film, it won't fit in the universe as the first two with a different director (like, say, X3).
Reply
3-17-2009 @ 3:42PM
PPK said...
not necessarily...look at Aliens or Empire and Return of the Jedi... those movies all had different directors then the originals and still were rooted well in the original universe.
PPK
3-17-2009 @ 4:58PM
carg0 said...
Transformers was a peculiarity because it's an intense, eye-popping orgy of a movie, which (for better or worse) sums up the cultural wasteland hollywood has devolved into rather nicely.
then (like Titanic) you realize how poorly the movie holds up after multiple viewings and are left wondering just what you ever saw in it. you might even feel too embarrassed to admit you got swept away. the rest are either too young, in denial or drank too much kool-aid beyond the point of saving. it happens...
whether or not the franchise can exist w/o Bay, i'll reserve my own opinion on that until i've seen this sequel a couple of times.
he might not be Spielberg or Fincher but he always brings unmatched passion and energy (which influences) to all his movies and that's something we should all admire.
Reply
3-19-2009 @ 2:37AM
L.G. said...
Mad props to Michael Bay for so sensibly putting his foot down. Maybe he can churn out "Bad Boys III" in the meantime? Preferably a more modestly budgeted version that carefully yet chaotically builds to a SINGLE effective, exciting climax and runs about half as long as the extremely bloated, indulgent, yet highly entertaining "Bad Boys II".
I didn't really dig "Transformers", at all but I'll still see the sequel because, hey, what else worth seeing is opening that weekend?
The whole idiotic, crassly commercial, assembly-line trend of major studios staking out dates for their tentpole pics in advance of even a simple plot outline for the next installment in their ATM-ified franchises is about the least creatively-conducive policy next to ill-advised on-set rewrites done on-the-fly.
When would that ever result in the best-possible, highest-quality film that could possibly produced?
I was immensely relieved when Marvel finally rolled back their ridiculously prematurely dated universe-building superhero slate.
Reply
5-08-2009 @ 6:13PM
ANTOINE MASON said...
I say find a new director to carry the film and then surprise the fans with a 4th film with that same new director.
Reply