Transformers: Age of Extinction: Lorenzo di Bonaventura Interview

Lorenzo di Bonaventura just wanted to make a movie about action figures. What it evolved into was a multibillion dollar franchise that Hollywood hopes will save a lackluster summer box office. Which it probably can, if audiences accept the new direction that Transformers: Age of Extinction takes, replacing the entire human cast, sidelining the U.S. military, moving a lot of the action to China and introducing strange new concepts from the animated series.

Related: Transformers: Age of Extinction Review

It will probably work out just fine. I spoke to producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura over the phone this morning and he didn’t seem to stressed out, although he was quick to say that it’s been a very long two years developing this film from the ground up, and that they only just finished it. We spoke about the strange journey of the Transformers franchise from a property no studio wanted to touch into a major economy booster, the decision to cater to Asian demographics in the fourth film, whether Age of Extinction qualifies as a “reboot,” and why casting Mark Walhberg meant the U.S. military no longer had to be involved.

CraveOnline: Did you know when you starting this franchise that this was going to be a driving force in the world economy?

Lorenzo di Bonaventura: [Laughs.] No. No. I think one of the truths that I’ve found is that almost every big franchise I’ve been involved with has had a ton of people saying “Makes no sense, why would you do it?” And we were passed on… oh god… at Paramount we were passed on four or five times. It’s interesting, especially about Transformers, they always say, “Well, it was always going to be a franchise.” Well, there were not a lot of people who really shared that opinion. All these things, you sort of have to will them into being on some level or another.

What changed at Paramount? Did you change your pitch, or was it Michael Bay’s involvement…?

No, Michael came in after we had developed the first script. I think we just wore them down.

One of the things that has changed over the course of these movies is the international box office. You’ve done a lot in this film to make it more audience-friendly to China in particular. Can you talk about that decision?

Sure. We had a creative idea… you know, all these things happen sort of organically. They happen one thing at a time. One of the goals of this was always to expand the scale of it, so we started looking around the world to see where could we go to create a bigger event. Hong Kong is a spectacular-looking city and because of its sort of, I’ll say “verticality,” which is different than New York City because the islands are very hilly, if you would. So you can create things visually that are very spectacular. So then Hong Kong became one of the prime targets, if you would, of okay, where would this story go if we were going there?

And also, the biggest supporter of the franchise has been Asia, and consistently the Asians seem to respond as a region to the property. So we kind of felt like Asia was the place to make a part of this movie, and so it’s all those decisions that came sort of one after another. China, that’s the right place to go. So we hadn’t even written a script when we had made the decision that that would be an area we would like to go, and as we explored different ideas we came up with an idea that made sense. And that’s what drove it there.

By the way, just the same way as we went to the pyramids, we didn’t say, “Okay, let’s go to the pyramids,” we said, “Where would you hide the certain elements that we’re trying to do?” What made sense in the world? And that’s where we came up with the idea. We were always enthralled with the ideas on the pyramids, and they had those hieroglyphics that look like aliens. That’s where that sort of came from. That’s how we did that.

One thing I noticed in this film as opposed to the previous three was that the previous three were very much about the U.S. military, or very much enjoyed presenting them in an almost orgiastic way. That’s gone now. Does that have anything the China element, or is that purely story driven?

Well, it wouldn’t really make sense if the America military was over in China. That’s really the rationale.

Well there’s a lot of the film that doesn’t take place in China…

And the other aspect of this, which I think is in a way the biggest differentiate factor, is that by having [Mark] Wahlberg as the star we are less dependent on finding elements that can be the… let’s call them “American fighters.” Because our lead is a fighter. He’s credible as an action element. So I actually think it’s one of the biggest differences in the movie, is that Mark can pick up a gun and shoot it, on a very basic level. Which that means we don’t need other people on some levels.

That’s interesting. Is that part of the reason why you wanted to jettison the character of Sam, or did you feel he had just run his course?

Well, I mean I’ve sure you’ve heard Shia [LaBeouf] was saying he didn’t want to do another one. I think the real rationale was, for all of us, and particularly for Michael [Bay], was if he’s going to stick with the series what can he do that’s fresh and original and gets him creatively going? And the answer was let’s change the cast. Which was then kind of an interesting challenge for all of us because, I don’t now anybody who’s done what we just did. Some people reboot series, but most series are about the same characters just at different ages. So it created an interesting thing, I think, in that it is a continuation story and yet you are having a completely new experience, and that got Michael creatively excited, and I think the audiences might… I don’t know, I haven’t seen it with that many audiences. We finished it a few weeks ago, but the ones we have seen seem to really respond to the fact it’s like a whole new world opened to them.

There’s been talk about this film jumpstarting a new trilogy. Would we be following Mark Wahlberg and Nicola Peltz the same way that we followed Shia LaBeouf in the previous trilogy?

I hope so. I hope so. Honestly we don’t really talk about the next one, but they’re great in the film so it would be a shame not to.

There are some elements from the series that you finally include in this movie. You’ve been very public about the Dinobots but there are a few surprises as well. What else is left? Do you have any thoughts in your head about incorporating “Beast Wars?”

[Laughs.] Over the three films, four films now, there’s a lot of ideas that have come that we have not shot down, we just haven’t necessarily found a way to incorporate it logically. Like Dinobots we talked about from the first film. We just couldn’t figure out a way, creatively… We didn’t want to put them in just because we could put them in. We couldn’t think of a way creatively, but when we came up with this notion of Age of Extinction, and what happened back when they went extinct and now are we going to be extinct, then suddenly for us the Dinobots seemed like, oh wow, it’s the perfect time. It all came together.

So I wouldn’t rule anything in or rule anything out, because each time we sort of debate all the elements that are sitting there in front of us and do our best to pick the ones we think will make the best movie.

It seems in Age of Extinction, even more than the previous films, that you’re laying the foundation for future stories. There’s a bit of a cliffhanger ending and a couple of plot lines are clearly left open for future films. Do you have certain ideas, whether or not you can tell me, that are already going to be in whatever the fifth one is?

No. For sure not. For sure we have talked about a lot of those elements, and there’s a lot of ideas that might surround them, but the truth is trying to make one of these things is so hard [that] the idea that we can spend time thinking about the next one is not… [Laughs.] It’s just not. It just doesn’t happen, you know. We make these things…

First of all we make them rather fast, faster than most people make them. I think we make them in just under, about two years. We pretty much have no choice but to be focused on one. And then at this moment we try to enjoy this, and then two to three weeks from now ideas will start going back and forth.

So that’s the sum total of your vacation from Transformers? Two or three weeks?

[Laughs.] Yeah, pretty much. Pretty much. It’s been non-stop. It’s not like we talk every day either. It’s just somebody will have an idea or someone will have a favorite character, and then it sort of gets tossed around for a while and then it suddenly settles.

Who’s your favorite character?

You know it’s a hard one to answer for me. I’m kind of torn between Bumblebee and Optimus. Sorry to be boring, but Bumble is such a teenager. I have a 16-year-old. There’s something so endearing about the sort of craziness that a teenager represents. And I think in this movie in particular Optimus has risen to a different level. I think I would have said Bumblebee before this but I think Optimus really became, I guess in a way because of the pairing with Mark… it’s like they became two action stars working together in a sense.

Tell me about the evolution of Bumblebee. In the first film you introduce the idea that his voice box was broken and he used audio clips from the internet or TV to talk. But at the end of the film his voice got fixed, but by the second film I guess you decided he was more interesting the other way?

[Laughs.] Well, you know, it was a temporary fix.

He’s just a hunk of junk on some level.

He is tricky, but he sort of does both now.

He has vocal inflection without actually enunciating anything.

Yes, I know. I know. I think it’s one of the things that people always liked about Bumblebee, is there’s something about that that’s in a way almost more expressive. It doesn’t force him to say words, it just comes back to… again, it’s reducing it to a basic emotion, and in doing that it becomes really relatable.

Speaking of basic emotion, the first film seemed grounded on the idea of a boy and his first car, a person’s relationship to technology.

Yes.

And as the franchise went on the plot took over and we spent less time with the Autobots as vehicles, for example. This seems like something you’re trying to return to a bit in this new one.

Well there’s no question that I think in this one the father/daughter/boyfriend is sort of the triangle, if you would. And I think, again, because Mark’s an action star, because he’s a guy we believe can pick up a gun and actually fight, it allowed us to unify the Transformers and the humans in a way that we’ve never been able to do. I think that’s giving us the ability to get to know them more because you’re more contained. You don’t have to bring in the military guys, you don’t have to do all this stuff. You believe that Mark Wahlberg can pick up a gun and fight. He’s our fighter. So when we hired him we thought it would have an effect. I think it’s an even more dramatic effect than we expected.

This is your second “soft” reboot within a franchise, or third if you want to include Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. I look at Transformers: Age of Extinction and I look at G.I. Joe: Retaliation, and the ways you take things that existed and turn them into a slightly different versions of the franchise. Were those entirely different situations for you, or were there parallels?

[Thinks.] My experience has been entirely different, I’ll say that. I think it’s because the story elements are so different that I don’t really see the unity. I think one of the interesting things about Transformers is I don’t think anyone’s ever done what we just did. It’s not a reboot. It is a continuation. It happens to be that the humans are all different, you know? I think creatively that got us all really excited on it because it’s something people hadn’t done.

Well, in some ways the humans – except for Snake-Eyes, who is arguably superhuman anyway – were all changed over the course of G.I.Joe Retaliation as well. What I mean by “soft” reboot is that you’re not starting a new franchise but you’re refocusing the franchise in a slightly different direction.

That’s fair. That’s fair. I don’t know. Maybe I just don’t respond well to the word “reboot” because “reboot” to me feels like you’re starting at the beginning. I don’t think you are, I think what you’re doing is you are… you’re adding and subtracting to the, if you would, the cake that’s already been made. You’re not making the cake anew; you do have some elements that the audiences already knows, or story elements that the audience feels allegiance to. In the beginning of this Transformers I love the shot where he’s driving along and there’s the sign, “Remember Chicago.” Because the audience says, “Wait a second, what happened about Chicago?” So I think that’s a really cool and fun thing, and I think honestly and creatively it’s more exciting to keep reinventing.

So is that the word you would prefer to “reboot?” “Reinventing?” Or would “recaking” be more appropriate?

[Laughs.] Yes, putting new icing on every cake. Let me think about it… What would I call it? I think it’s reimagining large elements of it is really what it is. It’s not the whole thing, it’s large elements of it.