No Transformers 3 for Michael Bay?

Summary

Paramount might have "Transformers 3" penciled in for July of 2011, but if Michael Bay is to be believed, the studio will have to move forward on the third installment of the franchise without him -- his latest posting on his personal site says he needs a year away from giant robots. Back to Article

Comments

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

Meh, I don't mind a Bay-less Transformers. Also I love how Michael Bay has his own internet diary to complain, sounds like my sister!

Mar 17 - 06:18 PM

sublimej311

lloyd christmas

It's funny because people including yourself are obviously interested in what he says. On the other hand you post in nearly every news article I see when I check the news on this site, but somehow it is "cool" when you complain....about...everything. If you're gonna be a douche at least live by your own criticism. Maybe you think having no life constitutes as celebrity status, but I think most people would much rather see what Bay is posting.

Mar 18 - 09:47 AM

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

I didn't read his article, but it seems like he is always complaining about something- Terminator 4, theme park ride, and now this.... And yet you read what I write? Talk about irony... Also I think just about everything I post on the site is a positive remark. I don't get why you get a big ol stick up your @ss right when you see someone isn't blowing Michael Bay and his Transformers gang. If you have a problem with my comments, its simple, don't read them. Yes my life is consumed with these 2 minute write ups, god help me that I like to talk about movies with "generally(aka not u) smart people. Also where did I say it was cool? Should I be positive about everything? Do you want me to be Mr. Rogers and only say positive things that don't make you take time out of your life to complain when someone says something bad about Transformers? If you have really read any of my comments over the long time I have been here, you would see I am generally positive and not just a downer prick.

Mar 18 - 12:29 PM

collex

Alex D.B.

I don't care who's behind the camera. As long as I see big robots beating the crap out of each other, I'll be happy.

I like Michael Bay movies for what they are: Awesome pyrotechnic show. I don,t ask more, and I'm not disappointed whenI don't receive more.

Mar 17 - 07:22 PM

nate2709

Nate 2709

Yeah, who needs consistency? I mean Joel Schumacher did a pretty good job when he took over the Batman franchise from Tim Burton, right? The studio would be stupid to do this without him. But it is Paramount, and they are stupid, so it makes sense.

Mar 17 - 07:50 PM

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

Yeah god forbid if the "Bad Boy" genius of Armageddon and Pearl Harbor wont return for a third movie. Really its just robots beating the crap out of each other, I don't get how Michael Bay is the only man who can do that.

Mar 17 - 08:19 PM

Elixor

Daniel Klooster

Yeah I agree. Plenty of directors could pull off Transformers if they still get the special effects and financial support that Bay is getting. Bay is good at action, but little else IMO. I'm not a big Transformers fan and would actually welcome a different approach.

Mar 18 - 06:17 AM

RamALamADingDong

That Guy

Here is the original Bay posting:

"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."

Doesn't say anything about replacing him. Either Paramount has no faith in Bay (then why have him come back for T2?) and they haven't informed that they're going to do to him like WB did to Burton and Batman. Or it really is just a misunderstanding. I'm inclined to think the latter.

Mar 17 - 08:00 PM

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

Yeah god forbid if the "Bad Boy" genius of Armageddon and Pearl Harbor wont return for a third movie. Really its just robots beating the crap out of each other, I don't get how Michael Bay is the only man who can do that.

Mar 17 - 08:19 PM

Elixor

Daniel Klooster

Yeah I agree. Plenty of directors could pull off Transformers if they still get the special effects and financial support that Bay is getting. Bay is good at action, but little else IMO. I'm not a big Transformers fan and would actually welcome a different approach.

Mar 18 - 06:17 AM

jimb14red

Michael Sullivan

Wow, imagine a real director getting a hold of Transformers. It would be a dream come true. But they would probably replace him with the only director worse than him, Brett Ratner.

Mar 17 - 08:24 PM

ZigBallistic

marshall westbrook

You forgot Uwe Boll

Mar 18 - 06:54 AM

Product_of_You

Steven Edwards

This is nothing but good news. Transformers was an abomination.

Mar 17 - 08:32 PM

Harry B.

USCf1lm 06

Please let this be.

Mar 17 - 11:54 PM

Elixor

Daniel Klooster

Yeah I agree. Plenty of directors could pull off Transformers if they still get the special effects and financial support that Bay is getting. Bay is good at action, but little else IMO. I'm not a big Transformers fan and would actually welcome a different approach.

Mar 18 - 06:17 AM

ZigBallistic

marshall westbrook

You forgot Uwe Boll

Mar 18 - 06:54 AM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

As a proud member of the 'Transformers was COOL as SH#T/Michael Bay fan club,' I agree completely with Collex.

I also hasten to point out something that Elixor said:

"Bay is good at action, but little else"

...I don't particularly WANT much else in a Transformers movie. Don't really care about Optimus' inner struggle or Star Scream's childhood. Just stick roughly with the characters from the cartoon/comic book, come up with some kind of 'journey' (find the all-spark or whatnot), blowds some sh#t up and gimme my giant robots. Bay did that, and I hope they let him keep doing it. Give him his year off.

Mar 18 - 07:06 AM

Gimy

Gimy Moo

sorry but i really don't want Oscar quality from a Transformer movie. i want action. bay equals action. pretty simple. fork over the money...convince him to do it a year earlier...or just wait. yeah other directors could make a good Transformers movie but they didn't, he did. keep a consistent franchise. you whiners who want somebody else are a minority. the money will burst in this summer and bay will do 3

Mar 18 - 07:39 AM

Hari Seldon

R Whitten

No Michael E-Bay, huh? And that would be bad becauuusssee?

Mar 18 - 07:52 AM

arendr

Arend Anton

The problem with Michael Bay isn't that he only does action well. It's that he does everything else incredibly poorly.

Mar 18 - 08:14 AM

cypress550

jeremy burnside

hopefully he wont return he messed up on the first bad and the second probably wont be much better

Mar 18 - 08:48 AM

Coyote22

Dane Jorgensen

Yeah most of Bay's films are like a chili-cheese dog they taste great on the way down, but about 30 minutes later you really wished you hadn't. I think this in someone else's hands would be an upgrade.

Mar 18 - 08:52 AM

nogard46

joe smith

holy crap he is a good looking man! Come on don't look at me like I'm crazy!

bay is by far the best looking director.

Mar 18 - 09:01 AM

Merlin235

Merlin Ambrosius

Bay doesn't make bad movies. It seems like everyone on here seems to think he does. He doesn't, plain and simple. Uwe Boll makes bad movies.
A bad movie is a movie that fails to do what it is intended to do. It fails because of execution. It's a bad product. Bay's movies succeed in everything they're intended to be. He makes a certain kind of movie, and he does it better than just about anyone. Transformers wasn't intended to have a deep human element, and if it did people would have complained about that anyways.
Pearl Harbor was, in my mind, his worst film because he stepped out of his medium. But Spielberg has done that too, with A.I.
Go watch Toy Soldiers, Charlie's Angels, Bloodrayne, Leprechaun, and anything on the Sci-fi channel and you'll know what a bad movie looks like. Bay's movies are executed well, filmed well, imagined well, and succeed because he makes them exactly how he intends to. He films action better than Nolan, but Nolan makes a better character piece. But Nolan is far from a bad film maker just because his actions scenes are almost unwatchable.

Mar 18 - 09:04 AM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

Wow. Two posts today that I almost completely agree with. weird.

Merlin, I agree with you right up until you start talking about how Nolan can't direct action. I think he's at least as good as any other director (directing action) in that when he films a fight sequence, I feel as if I'm experiencing the fight the way it happens; jerky, frenetic movements that don't always allow careful observation. It's a fight, not a dance to be appreciated for its beauty. I can understand how someone watching a movie (where the appearance is INDEED far more important than the (non)reality) could be frustrated by this, but I never felt cheated watching Nolan. I never felt "wow, this fight sucks because I can't see the roundhouse just there."

again, aside from this difference, I completely agree with you.

Mar 18 - 09:32 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Sorry Tombstone, but some of TDK's action sequences were horrible, filmed in too much darkness and harder to follow than Bourne Supremecy. I know that everyone's going to get pissed by that statement but I don't care. Next Batman movie I want to see him actually doing some moves besides just taking his fist to the top of bad guys' heads. That in my mind was the dumbest part of the movie. Strong story, strong acting, not so good fight scenes. The action scenes (hosptial blowing up, opening sequence, even the Hong Kong escape) were awesome. Fight scenes were very MEH.

Mar 18 - 10:00 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

no need to apologize to me, dude. 's all good-- and, more to the point, it's subjective. We just disagree.

It doesn't particularly matter to me if I convince you that the fight scenes were any better than you thought they were, but I will offer this as a possible 'philosophy' of Nolan's fight filming; Batman doesn't CARE how he wins the fight, and therefore Nolan doesn't FOCUS on how he wins the fight. It's entirely secondary to the purpose of WHY Batman is fighting. He HAS to win because it serves his greater purpose of stopping whatever evil he's hunting. So, cue fight scene: Batman approaches target in dark nightclub with lethal speed, fists and feet start flying--in *some* martial artistic way-- and bad guy goes down ...so Batman can get to Sal Maroni. The point of that scene is the inevitability of Batman achieving his goal, not whether he's able to use some funky arm lock or piece of household furniture to beat someone up.

This is different than Bourne because the WHOLE point of the fight scenes in Bourne are to demonstrate exactly how *good* he is at fighting and improvising. If you couldn't see how well he fights, the movie loses that particular element of his 'lethal' appeal as a character.

..And I say this as a former obsessive martial arts enthusiast.

Mar 19 - 07:37 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Well said Merlin!

I made a similar comment a while back on another board relating to Bay. I've never understood the intense hatred I see for him on movie sites. I think it's interesting though that the general public doesn't seem to have any problem with him. I suspect it's some sort of elitist hive-mind syndrome where if everyone hates the same thing it makes for something in common people can agree on. Anyway, I digress...

Bay's movies are always top-notch productions. They generally have large budgets and you see it all on screen. They may not necessarily be particularly inspiring or stimulating, but they're well-executed, wide-appeal entertainment, and their box office takes are undeniable proof of that (The Island notwithstanding, but everyone has their flops). There's a reason Uwe Boll's movies never make money: they suck.

I agree that Pearl Harbor's problem was that Bay tried to do something he hadn't done before and wasn't particularly good at. I think parts of that movie are very good, and other parts were handled a little less successfully. I don't fault him for trying something new though (especially since he seems to realize he wasn't good at it and hasn't attempted much in the way of romance since). I liked Transformers well enough, but I think it ranks alongside Pearl Harbor as being one of his weakest movies, and again it's because it falls outside his comfort zone of R-rated (or at least adult-oriented) action movies. Transformers was the first movie Bay made that had to target children as a key demographic, and I think he wasn't entirely sure how to do that. Making a movie that balances adult and kid appeal is no easy task (look what happened when George Lucas tries to do it), and I think some of the most cringe-inducing parts of the movie were thrown in there and/or presented the way they were in an attempt to appeal to the child demographic. I'm curious to see if he does a better job of it the second time around, and if not I think someone else should take the reins for the third film, someone like Spielberg who is a little more adept at making family-oriented films. Quite frankly I'd rather see Bay spending his time on something more The Rock-esque anyway; it's what he's (very) good at.

Mar 18 - 09:16 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

Wow. Two posts today that I almost completely agree with. weird.

Merlin, I agree with you right up until you start talking about how Nolan can't direct action. I think he's at least as good as any other director (directing action) in that when he films a fight sequence, I feel as if I'm experiencing the fight the way it happens; jerky, frenetic movements that don't always allow careful observation. It's a fight, not a dance to be appreciated for its beauty. I can understand how someone watching a movie (where the appearance is INDEED far more important than the (non)reality) could be frustrated by this, but I never felt cheated watching Nolan. I never felt "wow, this fight sucks because I can't see the roundhouse just there."

again, aside from this difference, I completely agree with you.

Mar 18 - 09:32 AM

rle4lunch

Chad W

Sorry Tombstone, but some of TDK's action sequences were horrible, filmed in too much darkness and harder to follow than Bourne Supremecy. I know that everyone's going to get pissed by that statement but I don't care. Next Batman movie I want to see him actually doing some moves besides just taking his fist to the top of bad guys' heads. That in my mind was the dumbest part of the movie. Strong story, strong acting, not so good fight scenes. The action scenes (hosptial blowing up, opening sequence, even the Hong Kong escape) were awesome. Fight scenes were very MEH.

Mar 18 - 10:00 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

no need to apologize to me, dude. 's all good-- and, more to the point, it's subjective. We just disagree.

It doesn't particularly matter to me if I convince you that the fight scenes were any better than you thought they were, but I will offer this as a possible 'philosophy' of Nolan's fight filming; Batman doesn't CARE how he wins the fight, and therefore Nolan doesn't FOCUS on how he wins the fight. It's entirely secondary to the purpose of WHY Batman is fighting. He HAS to win because it serves his greater purpose of stopping whatever evil he's hunting. So, cue fight scene: Batman approaches target in dark nightclub with lethal speed, fists and feet start flying--in *some* martial artistic way-- and bad guy goes down ...so Batman can get to Sal Maroni. The point of that scene is the inevitability of Batman achieving his goal, not whether he's able to use some funky arm lock or piece of household furniture to beat someone up.

This is different than Bourne because the WHOLE point of the fight scenes in Bourne are to demonstrate exactly how *good* he is at fighting and improvising. If you couldn't see how well he fights, the movie loses that particular element of his 'lethal' appeal as a character.

..And I say this as a former obsessive martial arts enthusiast.

Mar 19 - 07:37 AM

sublimej311

lloyd christmas

It's funny because people including yourself are obviously interested in what he says. On the other hand you post in nearly every news article I see when I check the news on this site, but somehow it is "cool" when you complain....about...everything. If you're gonna be a douche at least live by your own criticism. Maybe you think having no life constitutes as celebrity status, but I think most people would much rather see what Bay is posting.

Mar 18 - 09:47 AM

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

I didn't read his article, but it seems like he is always complaining about something- Terminator 4, theme park ride, and now this.... And yet you read what I write? Talk about irony... Also I think just about everything I post on the site is a positive remark. I don't get why you get a big ol stick up your @ss right when you see someone isn't blowing Michael Bay and his Transformers gang. If you have a problem with my comments, its simple, don't read them. Yes my life is consumed with these 2 minute write ups, god help me that I like to talk about movies with "generally(aka not u) smart people. Also where did I say it was cool? Should I be positive about everything? Do you want me to be Mr. Rogers and only say positive things that don't make you take time out of your life to complain when someone says something bad about Transformers? If you have really read any of my comments over the long time I have been here, you would see I am generally positive and not just a downer prick.

Mar 18 - 12:29 PM

What's Hot On RT

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See all the Comic-Con Costumes!

Weekly Binge
Weekly Binge

Check out Boardwalk Empire

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

Fifty Shades of Grey
Fifty Shades of Grey

A masochistic trailer

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile