Two Transformers Sequels Already Given The Go Ahead

I remember reading somewhere a few weeks ago that a sequel to Michael Bay’s Transformers was already being talked about and that a script may even be in the process of being written. No big surprise, right? With all the hype surrounding the film, it’s looking like it will be (at the very least) a moderate success, and a sequel is a no brainer. However, now Digital Spy is reporting that the higher-ups at Dreamworks have already given the green light for not one but two Transformers sequels. And this, my friends, is something that is becoming all too common with movies lately, and it really bugs me.

On this week’s Film Junk Podcast I mentioned the fact that I thought the Pirates of the Caribbean series had been stretched beyond its limits, and part of the problem is that studios now take a successful movie and automatically plan to turn it into a trilogy. They don’t just do a part 2 and wait to see how that is received. I don’t know if it’s The Lord of the Rings that is to blame for Hollywood’s new obsession with trilogies, or The Matrix sequels which were shot back to back to save money, but either way, it’s just another example of studios ramming out more product with a quantity over quality approach. Why can’t we just take it one step at a time?

  • The worst thing about it is that it makes the series feel terribly unbalanced. It really started with the original Star Wars trilogy though.

    All these 3-movies series where the first one has beginning, middle and end, but then the 2 sequels are interconnected like a soap opera, usually with a radically different storyline and with tons of pathetic leaps of faith to connect it with the original (Darth Vader reappears, Agent Smith survives, Barbossa reappears etc. and that’s just the obvious ones).

  • I for one don’t understand the draw behind the trilogy. Why is three the magic number? I completely agree that if a movie does well, a sequel should be planned which, if it performs well also, should then warrant a second sequel. The Lord Of The Rings series made total sense because of the fact that there were three books, but what reason have any of the other trilogies out there had to announce two additional sequels at once? My real question, though, is has there ever been a movie or movies announced as a trilogy that performed so badly that the sequels were canned? I can’t think of an instance, but it seems like it should have happened by now with some of the garbage that ends up in theaters at the behest of the “trilogy rule”.

  • I think three movies is just how long it takes before the general public starts to realize they’ve been swindled. Well, more specifically, two sequels. People will go see two crappy sequels because hey, the first sequel might have been an accident. But after two bad movies in a row, most people are ready to throw in the towel.

  • That’s a good point. I think that’s definitely the consensus with The Matrix and to a lesser degree lord of the rings.

    I think the double-sequel thing is just to cash in the most money possible though. It’s cheaper to shoot it, and especially when they’re released months apart like The Matrix, you get the most bang for your advertising bucks.

  • Mike

    @ Rian

    I read that the Serenity actors all signed on for three movies. Serenity bombed in theaters and as far as I know they scrapped the other two.

  • Oh yeah, Lost in Space was canned as well.

    And Hulk too.

  • Mike

    Edward Norton’s doing the new Hulk, so I think it’s been “re-tooled.”

  • Pingback: Uruloki :: Blog » Popurrí noticiero: Guillermo del Toro no para, Sin City 2 si, y el remake de El Ente debería…()