Oct 2 2007'Transformers 2' to be 'Godfather Pt. 2' of Cars That Turn into Robots Movies
Somehow the makers of Transformers have gotten the impression that it's the deep, dark story and rich, well-developed characters--not an adolescent desire to see robot cars fight each other, or 20 and 30-something males clinging on to their fading youth through misplaced nostalgia--that drew viewers to see Michael Bay's take on '80s camp. Thus, visual effects supervisor Scott Farrar is promising an even darker, deeper story and characters for the sequel:
['Transformers 2' is] all going to be dramatic. I think the commitment is not to just chuck out a sequel. The commitment is—and this makes us really happy here—that it's a deep story. There are lots of layers to the story of all these Decepticons, everybody. And so they want to really keep the characters rich.
I know I'll hear some dissenting opinion on this, but if this means more talking and less robotic destruction, they've probably lost my ticket. I already nearly threw up paying for anything from the mind of Michael Bay. However, if his idea of added drama includes someone ripping that wavy, slicked-down hat that Shia LeBeouf calls hair off his skull, let's get on it.
Transformers 2 More Ambitious [Sci-Fi]
Reader Comments
1. Darling Nick - October 2, 2007 3:13 PM
Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck. Son of a bitch. Well the second ones ruined now too. God dammit. The only way I'll pay to see that is if they autobots and the other tream whose name I have tried to spell like nine times and can't team up and kill all those damn humans. I hate those freaking humans.
2. Uncle Eccoli - October 2, 2007 3:33 PM
The first one was a stupid idea. Hollywood's suffering from a serious creativity deficit. We are witnessing the death throes of cinema.
3. cd - October 2, 2007 3:57 PM
i liked the first one...it was what it was supposed to be...entertaining. i didn't go in expecting an oscar worth performance from a machine
4. blpressure - October 2, 2007 4:26 PM
I liked the first one too. If they can balance action, humour and have a deeper story than the first it'll be just as good or even better. Maybe I wasn't disappointed because like cd above me, I went to see CGI action and be entertained.
5. Mac - October 2, 2007 5:40 PM
The first one wasn't terrible. Having said that, they probably could have removed the transformers, left the actors and it would have made almost the same amount of sense. That's how small a part they seemed to play in the movie.
6. LordMangus - October 3, 2007 3:01 AM
fuck any motherfucker that thinks transformers was a good film. micheal bay is a fucking piece of shit lousy excuse for a director and put zero plot development on some of the most piviotal characters of an amazng 80s franchinse AKA my fucking childhood.
i couldve even settled for them taking scenes directly from the animated film (which rules by the way)
i agree w/ uncle eccoli these fucks in hollywood are running out of ideas.
somebody fucking call up james cameron. that dood would make an amazing transformers film.
7. vaquero - October 4, 2007 1:16 PM
why is everything aimed to be a trilogy????
8. MC - October 8, 2007 7:35 AM
Damn it...I didn't even pay to see this piece of turd of a movie and still felt Michael Bay owed me some form compensation for sitting through transformers. Well...I didn't actuially sit through the entire thing. I was so disappointed at the lame ass jokes, horrible acting, rediculous plots, and oh..did I saw that this thing sucked? I left shortly after the transformers were tiptoeing through the backyard. I couldn't take any more.
And now he wants to do a sequal...
I'm surprised he didn't do a sequal to Pearl Harbor called Brokeback Guadal Canal were Cuba Gooding is now a marine fighting the Italians and falls for Heath Ledger who is in love with Salty, the company cook.
Can someone take away his Director's Guild card??
9. Transformers 2 - January 3, 2008 12:54 AM
Sounds like it is gonna get pushed back to 2010.. lame. Lame. LAME!