After much speculation regarding who would be cast in the upcoming fourth live-action Transformers movie, Micheal Bay has confirmed on his website that Mark Wahlberg has been signed on for Transformers 4.
HOLLYWOOD, CA (November 8, 2012) – After an exceptionally successful collaboration on the upcoming “Pain and Gain,” Michael Bay has cast Academy Award®-nominee Mark Wahlberg in the highly anticipated “TRANSFORMERS 4.” The film will hit theaters June 27th, 2014.“Mark is awesome. We had a blast working on “Pain and Gain” and I’m so fired up to be back working with him. An actor of his caliber is the perfect guy to re-invigorate the franchise and carry on the Transformers’ legacy,” said Bay.
Bay will direct the next installment in the “TRANSFORMERS” series, which begins shooting next spring. From Paramount Pictures, a division of Viacom, Inc., in association with Hasbro, the film will be produced by Don Murphy & Tom DeSanto, Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Ian Bryce, and executive produced by Steven Spielberg, Bay, Brian Goldner and Mark Vahradian.
Bay’s first “TRANSFORMERS” film was a box office sensation in 2007, opening at #1 and earning more than $700 million worldwide. His second installment “TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN” in 2009 grossed more than $830 million worldwide. In 2011, “TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON” was an even bigger hit worldwide, grossing more than a billion dollars to become the 5th highest grossing film of all time. To date, the franchise has earned more than $2.6 billion worldwide.
On the same story, we also have our first look at a logo for Transformers 4, which has been attached to this news story for your viewing pleasure. Don’t forget to stay tuned here to TFW2005, as we bring you the latest Transformers Movie news as it happens.
MpBlack
awesome and very cool logo,
seen from logo, is this a revival of the Decepticon
MV95
Well, there are going to be new designs
Kimmer
Talk to me when they get a new director, new writers, and new bot designs. I could care less about a new lead actor. Yes, I like Wahlberg a heck of a lot more than Shia but as long as Bay is involved these movies will be absolutely horrendous.
Sso02V
Because, as this evidently bears repeating, robots that are animals are not the same thing as robots that turn into animals.
What does a 40 foot robot with a laser gun, a sword, and opposable thumbs have to gain by becoming a 30 foot robot that can bite things and can't wipe its own nose?
Sideways77
1- How so? Bay's movies have impacted many people and brough them into theworld of Transformers.
2- Still more attractive than Megan.
-So? Megs wasnt the big bad in ROTF and DOTM.
-And? Atleast Movie Optimus has a creative personality unlike G1 Prime.
-How was WHeeljack a ******?
-It's a movie. They can't give everyone screentime.
-Maybe to you. Many of us thought Scream's death suited him.
-It didn't huh?
3- Because those Protoform haven't scanned an Earth mode and have to use ships? Plus the ships were needed for an ariel assult on CHicago.
4- Cry me a river
5- It was? So everone thought it was a letdown?
I swear these Bay haters have no good arguments.
jop
No, not really.
You see, there are two ways in which to interpret the statement "[Michael Bay], make a decent film for once in your pathetic career" by webz.
In the first interpretation, we take the first part of the sentence – "Make a decent film for once" – to be a criticism of the quality (or lack thereof) of Michael Bay's films; and the second part of the sentence to be a qualifier, indicating that said lack of quality extends across the span Michael Bay's entire career.
In the second interpretation, we again take the first part of the sentence to be a criticism of the quality of Michael Bay's films. The second part, however, is instead perceived as an entirely new and different criticism; one of Michael Bay's success at the box office, or in some other financially-related fashion.
The second interpretation fails Occam's Razor. It requires the second part of the sentence to be interpreted as a new criticism, when no such indication of a change in the author's intent exists. It also requires the author to be unaware of Michael Bay's success at the box office; given the high degree of coverage given toward just the success of the Transformers franchise (and the even higher degree of focus on said success with the fandom), this seems statistically unlikely.
In short: at no point was Michael Bay's financial success in dispute.
However, ErbFan28 brought it up regardless. This may be because he or she subscribed to the second, more unlikely interpretation above. Another possibility is that ErbFan28 sought to counter the original statement by whatever means necessary; and as it is very difficult to argue that Michael Bay's work is critically extolled, he or she chosen instead to purposefully misinterpret the original argument so as to provide a more justifiable counter-argument. (The infamous 'Straw Man' fallacy.)
Don't get me wrong; the original comment is bombastic and overly sweeping. Regardless, words still have meaning; and we cannot go about redefining that meaning just because it is convenient to whatever agenda we aim to push.
Absolutely; and if the original comment from webz had substituted the phrase "…Once in your financially pathetic career" or "…Once in your pathetic career at the box office", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it stands, ErbFan28's response was at best irrelevant, and at worst, intentionally fallacious.
MV95
I know that it wasn't your only point, but you would hate a movie because an actress is (in your opinion) ugly? Seriously?
Ephland
Michael Bay has strengthened the legacy to a greater degree than it has ever been.
Each movie was an improvement upon the previous entry.
optimusprime42
mark is replacing shia was on yahoo yesterday
webz
First of all, Yes he is.
Secondly, yes. Rosie is UGLY (lips look like she was stung by a bee), Megatron was totally impotent thru 99% of the film. Prime continues his psychotic murder spree, Wheeljack/Q was a freakin' ******, Mirage/Dino had barely more screen time than Jolt, Starscream's death was pathetic, Ironhide's death had zero impact on the autobots. NONE of the deaths had any impact.
Instead of Starscream's seeker armada, we get cheap-looking alien proto-form pilots of dumb hoverpods. They are TRANS-FRIGGIN-FORMERS… WHY are they piloting hoverpods?
We can have Lazerbeak, Ravage, insecticons, a giant worm, a giant scorpion… ALL animals… but no dinobots?
So much of DOTM was a total letdown. ROTF's biggest error was it was way too long. They could have cut a good 20 minutes out of it (mostly the inbred twins, the love story, and the pretender chick) and it would have been a tighter film.
jgoss
very cool that mark wahlberg is in tf4!
MV95
First of all- No he isn't.
Secondly- You actually think DOTM is worse than ROTF???
Bravemaximike
Ha ha, TransFOURmers. Pure genius, dude.
Also, I agree this is my biggest problem with the movies. I never bought any movie toys since 2007, I hate those things.
At the same time I'll admit that I'd be happy if they just kept giving us CHUG figures. I'm biased.
darthschroeder
Just going to throw this out there: I really do not like Michael Bay or his vision of the Transformers. Everytime I start to get into collecting the Transformers action figures, a new TF movie comes out and I have to suffer with crap movie figures. Now that this Trans"four"mers (there's a Bay-esque title for ya) has been announced, the cycle will repeat. Good for all yall that like this style of Transformers, but it's not for me. Enjoy your movie, though.
Heh heh….. Transfourmers. Pretty funny. Sounds pretty Hollywood to me.
Trans4mers 2013
Rayzilla Prime
I saw a picture of Mark just a while ago, and he kinda looks like he'd fit in as an older Sam Witwicky. Just sayin'.
Heck, just because Shia isn't coming back doesn't mean his character isn't.
rusty26
Michael Bay is slowly destroying the Transformers legacy with his Bay formers ..
those three movies were crap each one worst than the previous..
TylerMirage
That's pretty much how I read it. Erb was merely pointing out the fact that, while Bay's films aren't the best, they make money and he keeps making them. He has a lucrative career as a filmmaker and that can't be argued. Whether we like the results is irrelevant. You can still have a "successful career" as a teacher, despite some people who might consider it "stupid" or "pointless" or "boring".
Daimao
I think you're the one who missed the point. ErbFan28 was arguing that Bay's career wasn't pathetic since he's rich as balls from all of his movies. No one was disputing the first part of Webz's sentence regarding the quality of his movies. Whether you like the movies or not Bay is successful at what he does.
JavaJim
Suck. Whalberg is not a good actor. So many better choices available. Transformers does not need Marky Mark.
Batman
While I have no desire to see another Transformers movie directed by Bay, at least the addition of Mark Wahlberg will make it interesting.