The superhero genre has been dominating the entertainment industry for over a decade, with various studios crafting their own cinematic universes. That includes Sony's Spider-Man Universe, which features characters from Spidey-lore, without actually including Peter Parker. The last of these movies is Madame Web (which can be streamed with a Netflix subscription), although it went viral for the wrong reasons and struggled to make money. And now producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has reacted to the movie's infamous flopping, saying it was "like an axe in your head." Let's break it all down.

Despite a strong cast, Madame Web bombed at the box office, and was made into countless memes along the way. It quickly got put on Netflix, where it trended well thanks to folks hate-watching the movie, and complaining that the heroes were only in their superhero suits for about 5 minutes. Lorenzo di Bonaventura was recently asked about Madame Web's unique life while speaking with ComicBook, where he got honest about the heartbreak of its performance. As he put it:

Ouch. A ton of money and hard work went into the ill-fated superhero flick, and it sounds like it was heartbreaking for those involved to see just how poorly it did in theaters. Add in the the brutal critical response to Madame Web, and it sounds painful for di Bonaventura. And as such, we probably shouldn't expect a sequel to get green lit by Sony anytime soon.

A ton of criticism was hurled at Madame Web upon its release. That includes folks poking fun at Dakota Johnson's deadpan performance, the lack of actual superheroes, and how much of the villain's dialogue was swapped for obvious ADR. But it also did really well upon debuting on Netflix, which makes things a bit more confusing. Later in that same interview with ComicBook, the movie's producer was honest about how tricky it was to ultimately measure the movie's success after streaming. In his words:

It definitely seems like there are some strong emotions tied to the work done on Madame Web. And per Lorenzo di Bonaventura's comments, it influenced the way he's approaching future projects.

Madame Web bombing came after Jared Leto's Morbius failed at the box office...twice. And as such, it seems like Sony's shared universe might be in some trouble. The pressure is definitely on for the next installment Kraven the Hunter to deliver in a big way. Although the lack of a Spider-Man might dissuade audiences from seeing it in theaters.

All will be revealed when Kraven the Hunter arrives in theaters on December 13th. For now, check the 2025 movie release dates.

Harry Potter is one of the most successful movie franchises of all time. Based on the incredibly popular fantasy book series, it has a string of record-breaking blockbuster films, the Fantastic Beasts spinoff trilogy, video games and several theme park locales. And due to the immense success of the IP, a TV series is currently in development for Max. While purchasing the rights to the books may have been one of the best decisions Warner Bros. ever made, it turns out, not everyone was on board at first. That's right, the movie exec who bought the rights revealed that his boss was was somewhat mad about the decision at the time.

Lorenzo di Bonaventura, a producer and former president of worldwide production at WB, recently sat down with Collider to discuss his latest feature, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. During the interview, the Hollywood veteran  also opened up about his decision to invest in Harry Potter. He kicked things off by discussing what drew him to the material and, on top of that, he revealed that he was able to get in on the story very early on. He said: 

The studio was definitely able to do so, as history tells us. While the Potter films are condensed, considering how long the books are, the adaptations are remarkable, taking the best parts from the novels and creating coherent storylines. They were very faithful for the most part, and that's especially true of the adaptation for the final book, The Deathly Hallows, which was split into two movies. Though the motion pictures are widely loved today, one WB exec wasn't so pleased with the amount of money that was shelled out for the rights:

The exec did have a point, at that time. The series may have begun as a kid-centric property, but the movies were able to break down age barriers. And what helped even more is that as the core characters matured, so did the storytelling. That allowed audiences to grow with Harry, Hermione, Ron and co. and establish the IP's mass appeal. I’m sure the person who wasn’t too enthusiastic about the purchase feels a lot differently now, as the franchise's popularity has been meteoric. The Wizarding World saga has earned over $9.6 billion at the box office worldwide, making it the fourth-highest grossing film series of all time. 

The lasting power has also been impressive, as there is still a hankering for more installments. It has been over 10 years since the final film premiered and, since then, the studio filmed the incredibly memorable Return to Hogwarts reunion. This gave the cast the chance to reminisce, and it satiated fans' desires to see the OG stars back together again. Considering the success, it's no surprise that the studio is now planning to adapt the novels into a Potter TV series for Max. So needless to say, any backlash aside, Lorenzo di Bonaventura more than made the right decision.

Potterheads can revisit the iconic film series and its spinoffs now using a Max subscription. For more information on the Wizarding World films, make sure to read up on the order of all the Harry Potter movies.

Warning: Major spoilers for Transformers: Rise of the Beasts’ ending are in play. If you don’t want anything spoiled, you’ve officially been warned. 

Another round of intergalactic carnage is now upon us, thanks to Transformers: Rise of the Beasts bringing the action. And by the time it's done, new doors are left opened for the franchise as a result of this sci-fi movie’s ending, especially with one big reveal setting the stage for a pretty huge potential team-up. That wasn’t always the case though, as a very different result could've played out. Here now is the story of why the creative team chose that seriously surprising name-drop that could define the future -- and it involved shooting two different endings and a two-year chain of approvals. Consider this your last call to maximize your chances of avoiding spoilers.

Why Transformers: Rise Of The Beasts Shot Two Endings For Its Big Tease

In short, the ending of Transformers: Rise of the Beasts sees hero Noah Diaz (Anthony Ramos) being recruited by the enigmatic Agent Burke (Michael Kelly) for a pretty sweet gig. As it turns out, this man is part of the organization know as “G.I. Joe” and, apparently, Noah’s exploits with his “friends” have convinced them to recruit him into their ranks. 

Cue the moment that blows up the minds of everyone in the audience, which is when Anthony Ramos’ character flips over that business card to reveal the insignia of the famed military toy line’s cinematic incarnation. I couldn’t resist asking for more details on how this ending came to be. So during my time at the movie's press day, I asked both producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura and director Steven Caple Jr. about their recollections on the matter.

While the bad news is there’s no script or idea in the works just yet, the producer did give some further details into why that scene came to pass. Here’s what he told CinemaBlend: 

I’ll be honest, while watching that entire final scene of Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, I was expecting a big reveal. However, knowing that this movie does connect with Michael Bay’s Transformers entries, I was fully banking on business card to read either “NEST” or “Sector 7” once it was flipped. As it turns out, my assumption wasn’t totally incorrect.

While Lorenzo di Bonaventura continued on with our interview , he revealed that a Sector 7 reveal was shot. So Noah Diaz was always going to get the job of a lifetime, it just depended which on made more sense. With both options in hand, di Bonaventura acknowledged one final detail about of his end of the process that led to the team deciding to finally Go Joe: 

That tingle may not be connected to the still in-development G.I. Joe 3, which has been on the table since 2017, but it’s a start. And that start came from another beginning, which saw the notion of the Joes and Optimus Prime teaming up originating on paper. Just as Lorenzo di Bonaventura was looking for this angle that'd make it all work, apparently Steven Caple Jr. helped find it. 

How Steven Caple Jr. Pitched That G.I. Joe Ending To His Transformers Bosses

With the idea of G.I. Joe and Transformers crossing paths in the air, all it took was screening both endings of Rise of the Beasts to make the decision. However, there was the fact that the idea needed to be approved by all the relevant parties. Di Steven Caple Jr. was on hand to discuss with CinemaBlend his piece of the puzzle, beginning with how the picture’s producers reacted when they read the first draft to integrate the Joes: 

When all was said and done, it took a line of approvals similar to the process that landed Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers’ cameos. It was worth it though, as Transformers fan Steven Caple Jr. knew the easter eggs die hard fans would love; including this G.I. Joe tease. 

Further exhibiting the handle he has on the material, the filmmaker capped off this story with yet another Hasbro/Paramount reference that could mean quite a bit. Provided, of course, that Transformers: Rise of the Beasts rises to the occasion at this weekend’s box office.

That is, of course, your cue to see Transformers: Rise of the Beasts at a theater near you! And if you haven't already, you can start piecing together all of the connections between the past and the present, as select previous installments are currently streaming for Paramount+ subscription holders. Though for the record, you may only need to watch Bumblebee to get the full picture.

Within the realm of sci-fi movies, the long-running Transformers franchise has been entertaining audiences for almost 20 years at this point. The original five-film run from director Michael Bay kicked things off with a very serialized storyline that built the mythos of the feature film saga pretty strongly. The relevance of that canon has been questioned by fans in a post-Bumblebee world, and the debate has returned in the lead-up to the release of Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. It’s time for an expert to step in, and as luck would have it, producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has a clear answer for how director Steven Caple Jr.’s movie connects to the Bay-verse. 

I was present for the Rise of the Beasts press day, and the veteran producer was on hand to talk about the past, present, and future of the Transformers franchise. As one might expect, the Michael Bay-helmed movies absolutely do play into the events of the more recent narrative throwbacks. Speaking with CinemaBlend, Lorenzo di Bonavenura clarified how Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) is the key to understanding how everything is connected: 

For those of you attached to the journeys of Shia LaBeouf and Mark Wahlberg’s franchise leads, you don’t have to discard those memories when you see Rise of the Beasts. If anything, the accessibility for newbies and trusted loyalists is another one of the picture’s advantages heading into its theatrical release; which sees Paramount's latest competing with Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse as well as plenty of other would-be summer blockbusters. 

Knowledge of those past adventures isn’t required, with Bumblebee being the most explicitly referenced chapter in this seventh film. As such, you don’t have to use your Paramount+ subscription to cram seven stories worth of lore into your head; though you’re more than welcome to revisit your favorites without fear that they don’t matter to the plot at hand.

If anything, a screening of 2007’s Transformers might feel a bit more poignant after taking in Optimus Prime’s new arc. Even in that case, it’s a new ballgame that follows fresh human leads Noah (Anthony Ramos) and Elena (Dominque Fishback), as they team up with transforming newcomers Mirage (Pete Davidson), Airazor (Michelle Yeoh), and Optimus Primal (Ron Perlman).

While some may have thought that Rise of the Beasts was looking to distance itself from the Michael Bay era, signs have pointed to the contrary throughout production. Most notably, the fact that Bay is still an executive producer on the franchise helps keep those connections in place. 

Also, director Steven Caple Jr. consulted the Ambulance director when it came to the more blockbuster-y aspects of this Transformers jaunt. And there's an unquestionable difference in approach between the original Bayhem era and the more family-friendly era that Bumblebee kicked off. 

With that readily apparent, the adventures that came before are still firmly in place down the timeline; and producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has assured us all that this won’t be changing any time soon. What we know about Transformers: Rise of the Beasts prepared us for yet another fresh perspective in the war between humanity and Transformers. 

That’s exciting no matter what side of the fandom you sit on, especially with the Beast Wars crew getting in on the action. You can take part in all of the new twists, turns, and transformations this weekend, as Rise of the Beasts ascends to its place on the schedule of 2023 new movie releases on June 9! 

There are plenty of upcoming Transformers projects in the works, including Transformers 6 and Transformers: Rise Of The Beasts. The franchise continues to do well at the box office and deliver for its die-hard fans. Bumblebee was the first attempt at a spin-off for the series, and it delivered a more focused and character-driven story that still delivered the standard giant robot action the series hangs its hat on. A producer for Transformers has shared his honest thoughts about where the Bumblebee spinoff went wrong (and what it got right.)

Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura recently spoke to Polygon about another movie he produced, the recently released Snake Eyes. Di Bonaventura spoke about the G.I. Joe’s franchise success and the Transformers franchise and everything that finally brought Snake Eyes to the big screen. Di Bonaventura also spoke on Bumblebee, the first Transformers spinoff, after being asked about the lessons he learned from the film. He told Polygon one of the problems with the film and what it meant to the franchise as a whole, saying:

Lorenzo di Bonaventura discussed the marketing campaign for Bumblebee and how it affected the perception of what the movie was versus what it was doing. The trailers for Bumblebee showed off a film that was less action-oriented and gave off more of a Pixar vibe than a Transformers movie with its focus on the cuteness of Bumblebee and his human companion. Di Bonaventura is rightfully critical of the marketing, but the film still did great in theaters.

Bumblebee did surprise and become one of the more loved Transformers movies, and di Bonaventura says that the movie was huge for the franchise because it allowed them to tell a different type of story. Bumblebee was more focused on the relationships between the robot and its human companion, which was getting lost as the Transformers franchise went on. Bumblebee allowed the franchise to get back to some of the aspects that made the first film special. Lorenzo di Bonaventura went on to say:

Bumblebee was proof that the Transformers could expand their movie universe and tell different types of stories that still do well at the box office. The emotional connection between man and machine that bumblebee reignited from Transformers 1 will hopefully be more present in the franchise going forward as it prepares for more epic adventures.

A Bumblebee sequel may be on the way, and after the success of the spinoff and the story avenues it opened up for the franchise, it’s a safe bet that we will see Bumblebee 2. Bumblebee star John Cena really wants to make a sequel, and more Cena is a pretty good thing these days. The transformers franchise can go in many crazy directions, even crossover with the G.I. Joe films. Whatever is in store, let’s hope Bumblebee’s influence has made its mark on the Transformers franchise.

While they both started out as toy brands, the Transformers and G.I. Joe properties have enjoyed popularity over the decades in comics, TV shows and movies. As far as that last category goes, since Paramount Pictures is the studio behind the Transformers and G.I. Joe film franchises, there’s a world where they could come together in one gigantic Hasbro crossover. So what’s the possibility of this actually occurring? Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, the main producer behind the Transformers and G.I. Joe movies, believes it’s an inevitability.

These film series are experiencing relaunching of sorts, with Snake Eyes bringing G.I. Joe back to the cinematic realm and next year’s Transformers: Rise of the Beasts picking up where Bumblebee left off. When Lorenzo di Bonaventura was asked by Uproxx when these two properties would finally cross over, he answered:

So according to Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Paramount isn’t keen on the Transformers and G.I. Joe sharing the big screen together, evidently thinking that mashing these two franchises would be too much. Which is interesting, because almost a decade ago, during the release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, di Bonaventura revealed that the studio was interested in delivering a Transformers/G.I. Joe crossover. It even got to a point where Paramount was interested in creating a cinematic universe, with Transformers and G.I. Joe being joined by the likes of Micronauts, Visionaries: Knights of the Magical Light, M.A.S.K. and Rom.

However, earlier this year, Lorenzo di Bonaventura confirmed that the cinematic universe plans had been scrapped, and now it sounds like we shouldn’t even except a Transformers/G.I. Joe crossover anytime soon. But as the producer sees it, it’s only a matter of time until those in charge at Paramount come around and decide that it’s time for these franchises to collide in what would surely be one of the most explosive blockbusters ever. Let’s be real, you can find a more organic way to have the worlds of Transformers and G.I. Joe merge than putting Jurassic World and Fast & Furious together.

For now though, Transformers and G.I. Joe will remain separate. Following an eight-year absence, the G.I. Joe film series is back with Snake Eyes, a prequel/reboot depicting the origins of the title character. Along with Henry Golding playing Snake Eyes, the movie’s other main cast members include Andrew Koji as Storm Shadow, Úrsula Corberó as Baroness, Samara Weaving as Scarlett and Iko Uwais as Hard Master. As for Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, it’s bringing in the Beast Wars mythology for a tale set in 1994. Anthony Ramos and Dominique Fishback star as Noah and Elena, respectively, and along with Peter Cullen reprising Optimus Prime, Ron Perlman will voice Optimus Primal.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for more updates concerning both the Transformers and G.I. Joe franchises, and keep track of movies slated for the near future with our 2021 release schedule and 2022 release schedule.

The Disney/Fox deal has left plenty of questions on the table. One question that hasn't come up as often as, say, Will The X-Men Join The MCU? is What Will Happen With Die Hard 6? The movie got as far as a title, McClane, and early news that Bruce Willis would return, along with a new actor playing a younger John McClane.

The first five Die Hard movies were distributed by 20th Century Fox. Now Fox titles are owned by Disney. So when Die Hard 6 producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura was asked if they had a start date yet for McClane, he added Disney to his answer:

"They" like the script -- that's a good sign, even if the specifics of "they" weren't discussed in his chat with /FILM. There's been a lot of talk about the script in the past year. Bruce Willis talked about checking out the script a year ago. Shortly after that, reports came out claiming The Conjuring writers Chad and Carey Hayes were hired to write the next Die Hard script.

In September, Lorenzo Di Bonaventura told Empire the movie's title would be McClane, saying "We want you to get invested in John McClane more than ever before." At the time, he confirmed McClane would bounce back and forth between older present day McClane, played by Bruce Willis, and a younger McClane to be cast in his 20s. The film was previously being eyed as Die Hard: Year One.

In late January, Film Stories UK talked to Lorenzo Di Bonaventura and he told the site McClane was still moving forward with Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard) attached to direct. But as of March 20, 21st Century Fox is part of The Walt Disney Company. There's a lot to sort through in the transition, including layoffs and release date changes.

Hope is not lost for Die Hard 6/McClane, but it just seems to be in limbo, along with many other films. It was already in limbo as the script was developed. Based on Lorenzo Di Bonaventura's latest comments, it sounds like they've landed on a script they like, it's just a matter of who is now in charge of moving the project forward and deciding what stays and what goes. As he hinted, we may not know much about it for a while as The Powers That Be sift through the many Disney/Fox projects in development.

As we wait to see whether Mickey Mouse kills off John McClane or helps get him back on screen soon, keep up with what we do know is coming to theaters this year with our 2019 movie release date schedule.

SPOILER WARNING: Major spoilers for the ending of Pet Sematary are in this post! Come back after seeing the 2019 movie, unless you have no plans to see it, in which case read on.

Fans of Stephen King and horror films were treated to Pet Sematary this weekend, which adapts the famed author's most grim and depressing novel. There's already been a lot of discussion over the changes the film made from the book, but the biggest change is definitely its ending. For book readers, it's basically an entirely different ending from the source material, and while I'm sure that fans will be debating whether or not it was for the better, the film's directors have their reasons for making the change.

Okay, big spoilers coming up right now. Last chance to turn away.

Pet Sematary follows the Creed Family, who move to Maine and discover that a cursed Indian burial in the woods behind their house can resurrect the dead. Those brought back are usually pretty murder-y. In the film, 9-year old Ellie Creed is run over by a speeding truck. In his grief, her father Louis buries her behind the pet cemetery, and she basically returns as a murderous demon.

In the books, the resurrected child is 2-year-old Gage, who kills his mother, Rachel, and is put down by Louis, who goes insane and decides to bury Rachel in the woods hoping it'll be better this time. However, in the movie, both Rachel and Louis are killed and resurrected by Ellie, and they become a demon zombie family, with little Gage appearing to be next in line.

That's a significant change, and co-director Kevin Kölsch told Collider that the ending changed organically during filmmaking and it wasn't a change they initially set out to make.

There were multiple different versions of the ending that were written and a couple of them were shot. One of them was the original ending in the books, and when they showed both endings to test audiences, the new one got the best response, according to producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura.

In fact, the filmmakers had three different ideas that were ranked by darkness and they ended up picking the darkest one. They never intended for Pet Sematary to have a happy ending, and screenwriter Jeff Buhler said it gave the film an extra punch.

If you are reading this, you've hopefully already seen Pet Sematary, so share in the comments below what you thought of the ending and if it was better than the book.

Michael Bay directed the first five movies in the Transformers franchise, but don't even pencil him in for Transformers 6. Producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura just made it clear that Bay has moved on, and the next film won't even pick up from the events of Bay's 2017 movie Transformers: The Last Knight.

When Lorenzo Di Bonaventura was asked if the studio was looking for new directors for Transformers 6 or hoping they could still make Michael Bay an offer to return. Here's the producer's response:

It was a decade of Michael Bay's life from his first Transformers movie coming out in July 2007 to The Last Knight premiering in 2017 -- and that's not counting all of the development and pre-production time. So it was actually a lot more than 10 years of Bay's time, and it would make sense if he's ready to move on, per what he told /FILM.

Just to drive the point home, Lorenzo Di Bonaventura was asked if the next Transformers script they are developing picks up where The Last Knight left off. Here's his one-word reply:

No. The Transformers franchise is changing in the wake of the disappointment of Transformers: The Last Knight and the positive response to the Bumblebee spinoff. Lorenzo Di Bonaventura recently said they're aiming for the next Transformers movie to be like a tonal fusion of Bumblebee and the Michael Bay movies. He said they want to have "a little more Bayhem" but also mix it with the strong character dynamics of Bumblebee.

But apparently they want the Bayhem action without Michael Bay -- or, rather, Michael Bay doesn't want to come back to provide the Bayhem. (I wouldn't be shocked if he did return several years from now for a big Transformers comeback. That's my prediction, locking it in for 2027.)

During New York Toy Fair 2019 a couple of months ago, the Bumblebee movie was officially declared "a new storytelling universe" for the Transformers franchise.

Lorenzo Di Bonaventura isn't a fan of the word "reboot" but he did previously say they would do another big Transformers movie and it would be "different than the ones that we've done before."

Transformers: The Last Knight made $605.4 million worldwide -- with $475M of that coming from the foreign box office -- off a reported production budget of $217 million, per Box Office Mojo. Bumblebee made $465.8 million worldwide from a $135 million production budget. Both films made roughly the same amount at the domestic box office, interestingly enough.

Bumblebee, which is reportedly getting a sequel, was embraced by critics and fans, with a 93% fresh rating and a 76% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, with an A- CinemaScore. The Last Knight got a B+ CinemaScore but only a 15% RT rating from critics and also a "rotten" an audience score of 44%.

So it sounds like the Transformers franchise wants to mix the success of Michael Bay's big budget blockbusters with the acclaimed quality and character relationships of Bumblebee. Makes sense. Can they pull it off? We'll see.

Meanwhile, if you're curious what Michael Bay is up to, he directed and produced the upcoming action film Six Underground, starring Ryan Reynolds and written by Deadpool scribes Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. Stay tuned for more on that film, too. Keep up with everything we know is headed to the big screen this year with our handy 2019 movie guide.

In the realm of sci-fi action movies, Keanu Reeves' Neo is considered a modern icon. Sure, the second and third Matrix movies didn't live up to expectations, however, the first remains a certified classic. Because of this, it's always strange to hear about actors who could have played the lead role in the film, as the end result might have been totally different. In the past we've heard stories about Will Smith and Brad Pitt, but apparently another name on the shortlist for the part was would-be Oscar winner and Reeves' Speed co-star, Sandra Bullock.

It's been previously reported that Bullock was one of the actresses up for the role of Trinity in The Matrix - a part that eventually went to Carrie-Anne Moss - but in a recent interview with The Wrap producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura revealed that the female lead wasn't always the role that the project had in mind for the star. According to him, there was a point where it was considered that the hero be gender swapped so that it could be played by the star of Hope Floats. Said Di Bonaventura,

Instead of making The Matrix, Sandra Bullock instead took on Forces Of Nature as her big film for 1999 - and while that may have been the right choice for her at the time, the box office suggests it might not have been the right call. The comedy co-starring Ben Affleck went on to get a tepid critical response, and a box office haul of $93 million; while the sci-fi blockbuster wound up being a cultural phenomenon and made nearly $500 million by the time it was done with its global theatrical run.

To go back to what was said at the start, however, it's hard to even know if The Matrix would have been the same film without Keanu Reeves as its lead. While there were some at the time who didn't think much of his acting skills at the time, he proved to have the absolutely perfect stoic charisma that was needed for the Wachowski film. Just like Ted from Bill & Ted and John Wick from the John Wick movies, the star made the role his own, and the fantastic results speak for themselves.

And obviously Sandra Bullock clearly didn't see her career end after turning The Matrix down. About one year after the release of The Matrix she starred in what was at the time her biggest hit as a front-and-center lead (2000's Miss Congeniality), and since then she has been a part of many $100 million-plus hits, including The Proposal, Gravity, and The Blind Side (a performance that also won her an Academy Award).

This is a fun year for The Matrix stories, as we are soon going to be celebrating the blockbuster's 20th anniversary (which, specifically, will be on March 31, 2019). You'll probably be seeing a lot more floating around, so stay tuned here on CinemaBlend, as we'll be collecting the best stuff we can find.

One of 2018’s most successful movies was the Jason Statham giant shark movie The Meg. The film made over $500 million worldwide, making a sequel a no brainer, but we haven’t heard much about where The Meg 2 stands since then, other than the fact that it’s in the works. Well, at the press junket for Pet Sematary in Austin, CinemaBlend's own Sean O'Connell asked producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura for some insight about what’s happening with The Meg 2. He responded:

When we first heard that The Meg 2 was actually happening, it was said that the sequel was in the very early stages and while it is still early and we are a ways off from a release date, it sounds like there is work being done. As Lorenzo di Bonaventura told Sean, they are currently working on a script for the film and seemingly taking their time to get that right before moving forward.

Lorenzo di Bonaventura did seem to hedge things a bit with “you never know,” seemingly not wanting to commit to anything firm on The Meg 2 until there is a script. There doesn’t seem to be a major rush and the focus at the moment is on getting that script and having it be good before the sequel moves to the next stage of development. But, it's encouraging to hear that the script is the primary driver of what happens next.

The other thing that Lorenzo di Bonaventura expressed to Sean was gratitude about the first film’s success and that the audience last summer really embraced The Meg and what it was going for. I think when the film was announced and we began to see trailers for it, the tone wasn’t entirely clear.

Some initially thought that The Meg was going to take a more serious approach than it ultimately did, but audiences, especially those internationally, really embraced it and showed up to have fun with a ridiculous giant shark movie that didn’t take itself seriously. Lorenzo di Bonaventura seems happy that the quintessential summer movie connected in that way.

What’s interesting about this is that although the silly approach worked at the box office, it didn’t work for everyone. Some people would have preferred the bloodier, R-rated cut that director Jon Turteltaub teased. One person who seemed to lament the gorier, adult film The Meg could have been is actually the film’s star Jason Statham.

As far as where a sequel could go, The Meg is based on a series of novels by Steve Alten and that could provide a pathway forward for the franchise. The sequels up the ante even more, introducing more creatures long though extinct that could delight summer audiences. Director Jon Turteltaub just wants to make sure that the franchise doesn’t turn into one with successively worse sequels where everything gets bigger, not better.

We’ll keep you updated on the latest on The Meg 2 as we hear it. In the meantime, check out our 2019 Release Schedule to see all the biggest movies looking to make a splash this year.

The Transformers team may not love the word "reboot," but it does sound like a transformation is definitely happening after the success of Bumblebee.

Hasbro just had a product presentation during New York Toy Fair 2019, and it was attended by Transformers fan site TFW2005. During the panel, the Bumblebee movie was officially declared as "a new storytelling universe" for the Transformers franchise.

That's what was expected. In December, when Bumblebee came out, Transformers producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura said they would do another big Transformers movie and it would be "different than the ones that we've done before," but he didn't want to use the word "reboot."

In January, after Bumblebee started picking up more money overseas, word came out that a Bumblebee sequel was in development. Deadline also said there was an animated movie in the works and plans for future movies in the Transformers series that may introduce new characters and bring others back.

Bumblebee has made $458,221,178 worldwide, about $126 million from the domestic (U.S./Canada) box office, and $332 million from foreign markets. That's off a reported production budget of $135 million, per Box Office Mojo.

At last year's Toy Fair, there was a rumor that Paramount was bringing in a new team to reset the Transformers franchise after Bumblebee. That later seemed to be shot down by the Hasbro Brand Manager, leading fans to think maybe the franchise wouldn't get a reboot. This year's conversation sounds similar, except if Hasbro just officially addressed Bumblebee as "a new storytelling universe" at the 2019 panel, that suggests they really are resetting/rebooting/whatever.

That makes sense after fans and critics gave a big thumbs up to Bumblebee, with many calling it the best Transformers movie to date.

If Bumblebee hadn't done well ... well, they'd be back to square one.

Michael Bay directed the first five films in the recent live-action franchise -- Transformers (2007), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014), and Transformers: The Last Knight (2017). Bay only produced Bumblebee, which was directed by Travis Knight.

The Last Knight made $605 million worldwide, but it was off a reported $215 million budget, and it was trashed by both critics and moviegoers. So it's no shock The Powers That Be thought it might be time for something new.

Transformers 6 was originally meant to come out in 2019, but Paramount removed it from its release schedule, leading to all sorts of speculation. Now it sounds like we could get a new version of Transformers 6 that's part of this new universe launched by the spinoff movie Bumblebee.

Travis Knight and Bumblebee stars Hailee Steinfeld and John Cena have all said they'd love to come back for a sequel. If that movie is now seen as the start of a new storytelling universe for the Transformers franchise, we should expect to hear more about future films from Paramount. Those future films may take a while to develop, though; in the meantime, keep our 2019 movie schedule handy for updates on all of the movies coming to the big screen this year.

The Transformers franchise is one of the most successful in cinematic history, earning billions at the box office. So naturally, as is the trend in this day and age, Paramount seems to be hoping to build out a cinematic universe with spinoff films about characters from the main saga. The first of those films, Bumblebee, hits theaters at the end of the year. As far as other possible spinoffs, the character with the most name value, more than even Bumblebee, is franchise hero Optimus Prime. So will the Autobot leader get his own spinoff movie? Here's what Transformers franchise producer, Lorenzo di Bonaventura has to say:

Lorenzo di Bonaventura certainly sounds open to it, and you would have to imagine that Optimus Prime would be pretty much at the top of Paramount's list of characters that could potentially support their own movie. I imagine that Paramount already has some ideas for an Optimus Prime movie, and is probably just waiting to see how Bumblebee performs to see if any adjustments need to be made and give the go ahead. Yet, as Lorenzo di Bonaventura tells Entertainment Weekly, such a film would have to be quite different than the upcoming Bumblebee, in part due to the distinctions between the types of characters Bumblebee and Optimus Prime are.

Bumblebee is a more emotional character, and that's part of what makes his solo outing interesting. He won't be a part of some bigger team, but be on his own. And because of how Bumblebee wears his heart on his sleeve and has the most human emotions, we will be able to connect with him as a character in a way that we might not have with Prime. The Optimus Prime we have seen in the movies is often the moral center of the films and the stalwart hero, so a movie focusing on him would demand a different approach. If Bumblebee is the heart of the Transformers, Optimus Prime is the soul. The two characters are very different, but that's what could make their respective spinoffs interesting, they would not feel like the same movie.

Personally, I'm not sure how a solo Optimus Prime film would work, considering that he has basically been the hero of the films thus far. So, in a way, they all were Optimus Prime stories. On the other hand, I didn't expect to like the new Bumblebee trailer, but was pleasantly surprised to see a different, more personal tone that teases a movie more akin to E.T. about a girl and her friend, similar to the beginning of the first Transformers film, than the subsequent ones that just increased the scale of the flying alien junkyards each time out. If an Optimus Prime spinoff film can also subvert expectations and tell a story that feels different and necessary to move this franchise forward, then I'd be open to it.

The first Transformers spinoff film Bumblebee is directed by Kubo and the Two Strings director Travis Knight, and starring Oscar nominee Hailee Steinfeld and John Cena. The film rolls into theaters on December 21st. For all of the biggest movies hitting theaters this year, check out our release schedule.

This poll is no longer available.

After five films, the Transformers franchise has a bit of a reputation and, depending on who you ask, it's usually not a great one. While the movies make for solid, mind-numbing, explosion-heavy spectacle, that's pretty much all they are. After a while, that can get pretty boring and the series saw the fallout in Transformers: The Last Knight, which barely grossed half of the last two movies. It was clear that a change in the formula was necessary, and Transformers producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura explains how the upcoming Bumblebee had to be different from what came before.

Transformers: The Last Knight was a movie that went for broke. It added King Arthur mythology, made Optimus Prime evil, and cast Anthony Hopkins. Again, the spectacle was there, but it was clear that people were getting tired of that being the only draw. The Last Knight earned only $605 million worldwide, which is still a lot, but by Transformers standards it was a pretty weak reception. The planned sixth film was removed from the release schedule, so while the studio tries to crack down where the franchise can improve, it'll be experimenting with Bumblebee.

From the release of the first trailer, it's obvious that Bumblebee is not trying to be like the other Transformers movies. The trailer was light on explosions and heavy on heart, something you typically don't see in the franchise. I personally wouldn't call trying to make people care about your characters a risk, but any change to a formula comes with some caution, so Lorenzo di Bonaventura and the team figured why not go for it and see what they can accomplish.

With Bumblebee being such a different movie compared to the rest of the franchise, what does the future look like for future spin-offs? Lorenzo di Bonaventura told Entertainment Weekly that he'd like to do an Optimus Prime movie or they could get real crazy and try to make a time travel movie.

It may not make much sense to do a time travel movie with Transformers, but when has logic every gotten in the way of this franchise? Go for it, I say!

Bumblebee releases in theaters on December 21, 2018. To learn more about the movie, here's everything we know so far.

Sometimes, following a cinematic universe can be a pain. With each film that passes, there's more material to retain and refresh your mind on before a new movie arrives in theaters. While it's a rewarding experience, it's also something that requires a lot of time that people don't always have. Thankfully, if you're worried about trying to keep up with the plot of the Transformers films, you won't have to refresh yourself before seeing Transformers: The Last Knight.

Collider recently spoke with the Transformers producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, and they mainly discussed the inner workings of what to expect from Transformers: The Last Knight. With the franchise continuing to develop, both through its narrative proper and the spin-off universe it'll start to branch into with the Bumblebee film, there will definitely be a lot more to keep track of. But as di Bonaventura mentions in the interview, Transformers: The Last Knight will give fans and new-comers alike a level playing field with the following development:

Transformers: The Last Knight promises to not only delve further into the story of Optimus Prime and the Autobots versus Megatron and the Decepticons, but also how they have connected and interacted with human history. Reaching as far back as Arthurian legend, and even making a stop in World War II, Michael Bay's latest foray into the Transformers saga looks to be continuing a pattern that started in Transformers: Age of Extinction. With a narrative that doesn't lean too much on previous installments, but instead uses pre-existing characters to connect things together, it sounds like it's going to be easier than ever to get on board with the Transformers series.

While it won't be required to watch the first four Transformers films to keep up with Transformers: The Last Knight, it's probably advised that audiences at least watch Transformers: Age of Extinction, if only to familiarize themselves with returning characters like Mark Wahlberg's Cade Yeager and Stanley Tucci's Joshua Joyce. In that case, there's plenty of time to lay some groundwork as Transformers: The Last Knight rolls out on June 24, 2017 in traditional and IMAX theaters.

When it comes to horror, the golden days of the 1980's are a hard act to live up to. Among the deeper cuts of the monsters that haunted the decade of permanent Halloween was the creatures of the Puppet Master franchise, which comprised of a group of puppets that each possessed a special, deadly attribute that made them the most efficient killers in the land of the large. Well Lorenzo di Bonaventura, one of the producers on the Transformers franchise, remembers those beasties as well as you do, and he's helping bring them back in a big way.

The news comes from an official press release that states di Bonaventura Pictures and Caliber Media have teamed up with Bone Tomahawk writer/director S. Craig Zahler and Puppet Master producer, and Full Moon Pictures big wig, Charles Band, in order to reboot the famous franchise. Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich is being written by Zahler, produced by Band, and features the following story at the heart of its reboot:

So right off the bat, Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich is changing the story up by making Andre Toulon one of the bad guys. Typically, Toulon is a good guy who controls the rogue group of puppets, as the series mythos expanded over time to show him opposing the Nazis. However, seeing as this is an initial synopsis, "the Toulon Murders" could ultimately be see as a frame job, or not even involve Andre Toulon in the first place. At the very least, Blade is still part of the line-up, so there's hope that even if the plot's been changed a little, the same puppets we all know and love will be returning for a modern overhaul. Still, reading over this new announcement, there's another question we can't help but ask with Lorenzo di Bonaventura in the producer's chair: could this be the first Puppet Master we see in theaters?

The history of the Puppet Master franchise has always been one of the direct-to-video variety. While the original 1989 film was supposed to have a theatrical release, Full Moon Pictures decided to go the home video route. Charles Band did this because he felt the film would make more money on video, and little did he know that this decision would define the company's history from that moment forward, turning Full Moon in to the direct-to-video juggernaut that it eventually became. But considering how the home video market isn't what it used to be, as well as di Bonaventura's high profile as a producer, we'd think that at the very least Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich would see a limited theatrical release, followed by a robust VOD launch, much like recent horror franchises V/H/S and The ABC's of Death.

It's always a little scary to see a film like Puppet Master become the target of a modern remake, but Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich could be an effective way to reintroduce the world to the legendary horror series. While there's no production start date or release date in mind at the moment, the 30th anniversary aspect of the story leads us to believe that we're looking at a 2019 release for the latest adventure of Blade, Leech Woman, and the rest of the Puppet Master gang. We'll see what happens, and report any breaking developments as they happen.

Part of the joy of playing with toys and action figures as a kid was having characters cross pop culture universes. X-Wing pilot Luke Skywalker fit surprisingly well in the model Batmobile I had growing up, and Spider-Man regularly teamed up with the Power Rangers to take down evil. It was a blast to stretch the boundaries of imagination beyond copyright laws and branding and figure out how two very different characters from two very different worlds would interact. So with that in mind, and considering that they’re both owned by the same companies, why not make a G.I. Joe/Transformers movie?

This past weekend I had the pleasure of sitting down with G.I. Joe: Retaliation producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura to talk about the new action-packed film hitting theaters this weekend. Check out our conversation below in which the blockbuster moviemaker talks about not only how a how a G.I. Joe/Transformers movie could come together but how a sequel gets the green light, what it means to have a star like Dwayne Johnson in your franchise, the scary gamble of pushing a film back nine months, and prioritization of “ninja stuff.”

It’s kind of a big question, but I do want to ask about the politics of sequels. When you’re dealing with big blockbuster movies, you’re dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, but there’s also so many factors involved, like you have the box office returns of the first movie, critical reception, fan reception... I’m curious, where does the balance come down to when you’re trying to figure out when to move forward?

Well, I think on a selfish level, what you start with is what didn’t you get to do the first time and what could you do better, just on a selfish level, you know? So, you tend to focus on that first, I think. You listen to the fans, you hear the fans. I particularly listen to the fans who like things because their enthusiasm is much easier to understand why they’re, if they’re coming from a fairly positive point of view, why they’re articulating a case for something is much easier to absorb than if they’re coming from a negative point of view. That’s me, anyhow. You know, you do look at it, and you say, there’s the business side of it where you look, “Ok we need $300 million for a wide. How do we do more than that? Where did we not do well? Where did we do well? Why was that?” You sort of do that analytical thing, which I find you do it and at the end of the day, you get a lot of confusing answers from that. So, again you sort of retreat back to, “Ok, what do we think we can just do better as filmmakers?” You know, and what can we do bigger? In this case, we thought by bringing in cast, it would create a bigger experience. So, that was one of the first objectives was to bring in guys like Dwayne [Johnson] and Bruce [Willis], where suddenly that changes the complexity of the movie before we’ve done anything to the story.

And you mentioned listening to the fans. How exactly do you go about doing that?

It’s online. Thankfully, there’s so many different way, fan forums that you go into, G.I. Joe forums that I go into. You know, there’s a cautionary thing, there are so many conflicting points of view that come from the fans that if you’re not careful you sort of get lost with what you want to do, because if you’re trying to please everybody and you go, “Wait a second...” And I’ve fallen in the trap of that before. So, now I don’t do that. I read it. I listen to what’s going on and I go, “Oh, I like that. That’s smart. I get that.” So, you cherry-pick a little bit, I guess.

And in mentioning that you try to do what you can to make it better in the sequel, just for this film specifically, you are introducing a bunch of new people, but also keeping some continuity with the old film. How do you pick and choose?

It’s tricky. It’s tricky. One of the things we wanted to do after the first movie is, we felt like we didn’t get to do enough ninja stuff the first time around. So, that was a big priority was how do you make a ninja story. It’s tricky to integrate it. So, we actually just said, “We’re not going to integrate it at first. We’re going to let it do that and then come together,” which is dangerous to split story lines and I think we got away with it, but it is dangerous because you’re sort of going, “What’s the motor? Which story am I supposed to be emotionally investing in as an audience member?” So, we wanted to do more ninja. So, I think we succeeded at that. You know, the idea of the President of the United States as a bad guy is such a cool idea. I’ve never seen that in a movie and it’s hard to find original bad guys. So, we thought, “That’s a go.”

And to get Jonathan Pryce back also, it’s...

Exactly. So, those two things were what really sort of locked in the decision making process and then from that point you sort of go, “So what’s the bad president plot and what’s the ninja plot,” and then Joe stared coming out of that. It was funny. There’s as many fans that love Heavy Duty as love Roadblock. There’s a warring thing. It’s sort of like Flint and Duke. It’s two decidedly different camps and so you can’t please both sides of the equation, but I think Roadblock came in part because I just loved the name. Roadblock is a great name and then you put Dwayne as Roadblock, well that’s almost like a double positive, isn’t it.

Well, that is kind of a point, I mean Dwayne Johnson has kind of earned the name, Franchise Viagra and I’m just curious, from a producer’s standpoint, it must be amazing to have a guy with that much charisma and that size also just as your action star.

It’s great, but the thing about him which I think people under-appreciate is he’s able to somehow able to remain emotionally accessible despite his size, despite his physicality, despite the danger that’s represented by a guy like that. That’s what i really like about him is that he’s also able to have a sense of humor, but even more. There’s a warmth. I mean, you see him with his daughters. You see him at home. There’s a naturalness to that which makes you route for him on a different level than you might otherwise.

I do have to ask about the push back, because it’s a significant thing.

And a scary thing.

And it’s a scary thing and there is kind of a stigma that comes with the idea of being pushed back. As I mentioned, I did enjoy the film. I thought it was really fun, but I guess my question is, what is the value of 3D versus kind of that...

Good question. I think there’s two things. Creatively, I think the movie is better with it. The 3D experience is incredible. 2D is really fun and it’s great, but what you can do now in 3D, when you do it well, which I think we did, you can create a more, that famous word now that everyone loves, immersive experience. I always think those terms are kind of bullshit. Come on, really, is that what it is? I think you get to participate with the screen in a way. That’s how I would describe it, rather than literally. So, you create a more... I love that moment when the missile, the first missile comes. It’s not even on the screen and that’s like, “Whoa, that’s cool,” and so, you’re breaking the boundaries of the wall and I think that just adds another element. So, you see it in 2D, it’s really fun. You see it in 3D, you get this new element.

So, as filmmakers, it was great that the studio... When you first hear you’re being pushed back, you go, “Well, what does that mean? Does that mean you don’t like the movie? Does that mean despite telling us you like it, you don’t like it? Are we going to get the stigma?” All those things. So, emotionally, the first moment is like, “Uh!” Then, I guess probably because I’ve been around for a while, I sort of go, “So, wait a second. They’re going to be willing to invest 10, 12, 14 million dollars more into the movie. Ok, that sounds pretty good.” You know? And then the unknown becomes what’s your next release date. Is it going to be a good date or not. It could be a terrible date in which case, you moved to the worst place. I think the date turned out. It looks to me like it’s going to be a good date. There’s no direct competition to what we’re doing exactly and it feels like there’s actually kind of a window for it. So, we benefited from it We’ll see if I feel that way on Saturday morning. But yeah, I think at the end of the day, it turned out a good thing for us.

And I do want to ask about the release date, but I’m curious, why was the original choice not to film it in 3D?

Because there was not enough time. We talked about 3D, but they wanted it for the June release date and the experience I’d had on Transformers told me that we were not prepared for it. And also with Jon, he never shot a big action picture and so to then saddle him with 3D cameras and the demands on top of that. We could have really collapsed. So, with Paramount, we made the decision not to do it. So, it wasn’t... We sort of thought about its visualization as 3D, because we always sort of did that. I think that’s one of the reasons it’s converted so well.

To get back to talking about the release date, the idea of a March action film, ever since 300 dropped...

How about The Matrix?

That’s a good point! And you had The Hunger Games, shattering records. It seems like the summer blockbuster season is no longer just the summer. It’s starting to expand into other areas. It’s starting to get further in the year. Do you think it could get to a point where the entire calendar is just open, because from a competition standpoint, if you’re not just limiting yourself to those few months...

Well, I don’t know. I’m not sure. March is always great because of spring break. So, it’s a form of vacation time period. Families are out. College students are out. There’s a lot of people who have time.

But even with May, you still have kids at school.

Yeah, there’s no question. I don’t know. The answer is every time we make a decision for years and years and years, nobody goes on Labor Day really. Why not? Maybe that will turn around some day. You never know. And 15 years ago, Memorial Day was the day when everybody launched on and then that kind of went away and now it’s coming back.

Just in terms of kind of looking at G.I. Joe as a franchise, one thing that’s great about this film is there really is throwback to the cartoons and the comics. You see the realization of the tank and it’s just amazing. But at the same time, you don’t have, for example, the theme song from the show. So, I’m just curious, where do you draw that line?

You feel your way through it. I don’t think there’s any formula to it. You try to find that kind of balance in it, which is there’s a familiar, you want to draw on what is familiar, but if you did it exactly the way the show was, as much as some fans would tell you should do it exactly the same way, if they saw it the exact same way now, they’d go, “Well, that’s kind of old-fashioned.” So, how do you evolve things forward is one of the drills and the other is alright, how many new things should we introduce and how many things should we hold on to? So, you kind of just, sort of, I don’t know. It’s like making a smoothie or something, I guess. You sort of go, “Alright, that feels like the right proportion,” but you don’t know.

Are you already looking forward to the future? Are you looking at the pieces that you have and seeing how they can fit?

I, as a rule, don’t ever look ahead to the next movie until the first one is done, because it’s hard to make the first one good enough or the second one good enough, in this case. So the idea that I could spend a lot of time thinking about something else until you’ve got this one right. On the one hand I think it’s kind of arrogant to presume you’re going to be successful, but more specifically, it’s, you just don’t have that much creative bandwidth going on around you and what’ll be interesting is when we see it released and we all hope it’s successful and hopefully we get to a third movie, but I think things change after making a movie where you go like... I feel some about certain things and certain characters right now in a certain way. Three or four weeks from now, I might feel slightly different and three months from now, I am going to feel different. Which ones am I really going to hold onto and which elements am I going to really hold onto and it’s sort out there, after the fact, where you go, “Well, that really is...” You’re not caught up in the moment. That’s the thing that really stood out and had resonance. I wasn’t... What’s interesting is the scenes, the domestic scenes or the buddy scenes between Channing and Dwayne. I wouldn’t have said before making that movie that having that sort of almost intimate buddy moment was really part of this franchise. Now I’d say to you, “I think we could do a lot more of it.” You know? Now, will I feel the same way a few months from now? Probably. But that’s all part of the learning process.

Once again, getting back to the evolution of the blockbuster movie franchise, one of the things that we are seeing a lot of right now, and it’s in great deal due to The Avengers and The Expendables is kind of the idea of both continuity explosion, like the idea of creating a larger universe and also just creating a team and I’m just curious, what’s your perspective on that personally and is it something you could see being part of future projects you’re working on?

In terms of Joe or just in...

Well, in terms of Joe, for example like G.I. Joe and Transformers both happen to be Hasbro, Paramount and you.

I guess it’s possible. I don’t know. I think I probably at this moment, I resist it. I don’t know necessarily why, but I just think there’s so much that’s so rich in the mythologies that I don’t think they need to draw from the other. I think, I didn’t rule it out for me and I think those things have somehow for me, sort of in the past, they made me feel like a little bit cynical exercises in just drawing money out of something. It’s not to say you couldn’t do it well, but both these properties have such rich mythologies with so many characters, that you could go a lot of movies before you start running out of ideas of what to do. But it’s not to say, if we found the right... I’d hate to set out to do that, but if I heard a story where we went, “Oh my God...,” I could see a story right now about machination, machination of war and that could lead you sort of intrinsically to a Transformer.

Did I just light the fuse?

Yeah! [laughs] But I think in general, Marvel is doing it within their own universe, right? And so it doesn’t feel gimmicky in that way. I think that’s what I would really try to resist.

Though he has only been producing movies since 2005, Lorenzo di Bonaventura has quickly established himself as one of the biggest blockbuster names in Hollywood. In addition to the Transformers movies he is also behind G.I. Joe as well as Red - and is even part of the upcoming Jack Ryan reboot. And now it looks as though he may have found his next big project.

Di Bonaventura and David S. Goyer have teamed up to produce an adaptation of The Breach, based on the novel by Patrick Lee. Variety says that the plot follows a former police officer in a race against time as he must stop an artifact from being used to bring about the end of the world. Justin Rhodes, who has a couple of indies under his belt, has been hired to write the script, but the trade mentions that the movie version will "diverge from the novel." Just how it will be doing that is being kept a secret. The report also adds that Goyer, who directed movies such as Blade: Trinity and The Unborn, is not currently attached to helm the adaptation, but it also isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility. The film is currently being shopped to different studios, looking for a distribution deal.

As a writer, Goyer, who had a hand in both The Dark Knight Rises and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance this year, has Man of Steel and Godzilla coming out in 2013 and 2014, respectively, and he is also executive producing the series Da Vinci's Demons. In addition to the titles mentioned above, di Bonaventura is also producing the Arnold Schwarzenegger action/western The Last Stand, Steven Soderbergh's drug drama Side Effects, and Tristan Patterson's Eddie Dodson biopic Electric Slide.

Screenwriter Chuck MacLean has built some serious buzz in Hollywood by penning a string of promising spec scripts. So Summit Entertainment has entrusted the scribe to translate John Huddy's shocking crime tale Storming Las Vegas: How a Cuban-Born, Soviet-Trained Commando Took Down the Strip to the Tune of Five World Class Hotels, Three Armored Cars, and Millions of Dollars into a gritty thriller worthy of attached director/producer Antoine Fuqua (Training Day). Based on the real-life exploits of Cuba native Jose Vigoa, Storming Las Vegas follows the headline-snagging crime spree of incredibly crafty crook who pulled off a string of high-profile casino and armored car robberies that terrorized Sin City for 16 months in the late 1990s.

THR notes Summit acquired the rights to Huddy's book last summer. And with a street smart figure exploiting his idea of the American Dream through a brazen series of spectacular heists, it's easy to see why executive producers David Ready (Man of Ledge) and D. Constantine Conte (Conan the Barbarian) were drawn to the material. To keep it true to form, Huddy himself has also signed on to executive produce. Also, joining Fuqua on producing duties is Transformers' co-producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura. So, already, Storming Las Vegas has a solid team in place to make this a memorable action flick.

The wild card here is MacLean. His spec scripts got him a meeting with Summit, where he must have dazzled, but movie fans will be curious to see what this newcomer has up his sleeve. But while we wait for Storming Las Vegas to make its way through development, let's begin to speculate on who should star as the Cuban criminal mastermind pictured above? Vin Diesel? Demián Bichir? Dwayne Johnson? Weigh in below.

So far the best look we've gotten at this summer's G.I. Joe: Retaliation has been the first trailer, though my favorite marketing for the film so far is the Super Bowl spot, which opens with The Rock quoting Jay-Z and only gets more fun from there. When I caught up with the film's producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura and director Jon M. Chu at New York's Toy Fair, where Hasbro was displaying a whole line of toys from the film, I couldn't resist asking them about the Jay-Z quote, and how the famous rapper found his way into the commercial for one of the summer's biggest hits.

The conversation with both of them, as you can see in the videos below, went a lot of places from there, talking about how G.I. Joe: Retaliation is headed in a completely different direction than its predecessor, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, and what Chu, whose previous film was the Justin Bieber documentary Never Say Never, is bringing to the franchise. There was also plenty of talk about The Rock himself, who you can see makes a cameo appearance in my Chu interview, making sure that his action figures-- which were in the Hasbro showroom next door-- were anatomically correct.

Check out both of these short interviews below for details on what to expect from G.I. Joe: Retaliation, and come back later for my conversations with the film's stars Adrianne Palicki, DJ Cotrona, and of course, The Rock. G.I. Joe: Retaliation is in theaters June 29 this year.

Lorenzo di Bonaventura was doing interviews today on behalf of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which he and his cohorts were describing essentially as a reboot of the franchise that kicked off with the popular but not particularly great G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. But of course, the first G.I. Joe isn't di Bonaventura's biggest hit based on a toy-- that would be Transformers, which seemed to have wrapped up its run when the third film came out and both Michael Bay and Shia LaBeouf suggested they wouldn't want to return. But there's still money to be made, and di Bonaventura and others have been planning a fourth film for a while now. Today, talking to MTV, di Bonaventura confirmed for the first time that not only will Michael Bay be involved in the new film, but he'll be directing it in time for a 2014 release. Check out what he had to say below.

To be fair, I also talked to di Bonaventura today and he made the same promise to me of summer 2014-- but he only told MTV that Bay would be back to direct, so more power to them. As you can tell it's still far, far too early to speculate on the story for a new film, or even which stars would be back for a new film-- though I'm guessing that the franchise is as finished with Shia LaBeouf as he seems with them, so I'd at least count on a new lead. With Battleship, another film based on Hasbro toys, making its best effort to look just like Transformers, it's clear the giant robot franchise is still a huge deal, and as far away as 2014 seems, Transformers will still be big then too.

As awful as the Transformers franchise turned out with nonsense like Dark of the Moon, it's hard to imagine the movies without Michael Bay, so it's a good thing they've talked him into returning. But beyond that, I'm not really sure what to hope for. Any die-hard Transformers fans out there who want to weigh in on the good news? Or can you convince me that Michael Bay's return is the worst thing possible? Let us know in the comments.

James Cameron and Sam Worthington are already planning a reunion for Avatar 2, which is presumably happening at some point, though chatter has been minimal lately. But apparently Jake Sully and the inventor of Pandora like each other so much that they're teaming up to tackle another sci-fi story entirely, though not one that will presumably take them away from Avatar 2, whenever that gets going. THR reports that 20th Century Fox is about to pick up the sci-fi pitch Myth from Will Staples, an action-packed story that Cameron would executive produce, with Worthington and Lorenzo di Bonaventura producing.

No deals have been made yet, but Cameron isn't planning to direct and Worthington isn't planning to star, meaning the movie can be advertised as "the team that brought you Avatar" without actually sucking up all their time (kinda like the way Sanctum was produced by Cameron, but was awful in a way Cameron's movies never have been). Staples is a newcomer to screenwriting, with a handful of projects in development that he wrote with writing partner Sean O'Keefe, but has a long background in writing the Call of Duty video games, experience that ought to give him a leg up in writing Myth, which THR describes thusly: "It's big, it's sci-fi, and it's got lots of action."

Big original sci-fi projects seem to be more popular these days than ever, surely in no small part thanks to Avatar-- Ridley Scott is bringing us the Alien prequel-but-not-really with Prometheus, Neill Blomkamp is busy preparing the outer space-set Elysium, and Prometheus writer (and Lost mastermind) Damon Lindelof is planning another one at Disney. Even with J.J. Abrams delaying Star Trek 2 and no start date in sight for Avatar 2, it's a good time to go to outer space at the movies.

The upcoming comic book adaptation RED had a big day today at Comic Con. The trailer they premiered was fantastic, Helen Mirren got plenty of attention with her Harvey Pekar shirt, Karl Urban wowed the crowed with a vivacious “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?” and Bruce Willis was a class act as always. The reaction around the whole convention has been immensely positive, but we all know what happens to good things in Hollywood: they get sequels.

Speaking at a press conference following the panel, the question of sequels came up and Cully Hammer, the illustrator of the original graphic novel, mentioned that he is currently both writing and drawing a prequel titled RED Eyes Only. But just because the source material has a prequel doesn’t mean that a film is to follow. For that, the conversation turned to producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura:

Unlike some other comic book adaptations, RED despite its absolutely stellar cast, isn’t a guaranteed hit at the box office. It is good to know that someone out there is actually listening to public opinion. It’s just too bad that they are likely doing it by looking at their bank accounts.

For more complete Comic Con coverage go here.

When you make a movie starring Angelina Jolie, you might assume there's a single prime directive: show off her body early and often, and make sure she looks good always. But Salt isn't your average Angelina Jolie movie-- she's playing a role original written for a man, she's playing an ass-kicking female action hero in a real-world context, and oh yeah, the producer and director made the decision to cut one of the actress's sex scenes.

Come again, you say? Indeed, the steamy scene glimpsed briefly in the trailer, showing Jolie locked in a romantic embrace with co-star August Diehl, was cut from the final film. "It was definitely not an easy choice," admitted producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura when we caught up with him in Washington D.C. last week. "When we were developing the script, we had a lot of flashbacks to try to explain her life. We shot a lot of those things, small, 30-second, minute kind of things that are almost not even scenes. You'll get to see all those on the DVD." Director Phillip Noyce explained further, "We shot of a lot of material with August Diehl and Angelina that was catch-as-catch-can type stuff. Just me, my assistant shooting with them on the way home from set, we stop and film something. It was all meant to be stream of consciousness flashback material." Noyce said the director's cut will be available on the DVD and will be about seven minutes longer than the Salt opening in theaters this Friday-- including a different ending.

We'll have more from our conversations with Noyce, including an exclusive sit-down, but for now check out the rest of what di Bonaventura had to say. The producer has no lack of experience with launching blockbusters, putting his name to the Transformers franchise as well as G.I. Joe, Shooter and Constantine. He gave us the producer's point-of-view on putting together a movie like Salt, including the risks involved in changing the lead character to a woman, the ways in which Angelina Jolie is like Steve McQueen, and which A-list actress he expected to become an action star before she went the romantic comedy route. We'll have many, many more conversations with the Salt cast and crew as the week goes on, so get things started below.

In the trailer there's definitely a few scenes that didn't end making the final cut. Could you tell us what those were? There looked like a hot sex scene.

When we were developing the script, we had a lot of flashbacks to try to explain her life. We shot a lot of those things, small, 30-second, minute kind of things that are almost not even scenes. You'll get to see all those on the DVD. When we put it together, there was a really careful balance between trying to keep the movie moving at the pace it moves, because every time you're having a flashback, you're slowing down. You're taking yourself out of the present day reality.

But now all the internet commenters are saying, 'Why on earth would you cut an Angelina Jolie sex scene?'

I was asking myself the same thing. It was definitely not an easy choice.We tried putting that in instead of them meeting at the museum, but it felt like you wanted to see the meeting, you wanted to understand how this character got sucked into it as opposed to where it had evolved to. And in a way, it answered a question we didn't want to answer, too, which was, does she love him or doesn't she?

If somebody comes to you and tells you, you have to cut a few million dollars here, where is the first area affected by that, usually?

It's usually in one of two places. It's either in the secondary cast or it's in cutting one big action sequence out, and in this case, actually, we cut one out and then we all thought, well, no, we need it, so we went back and got it.

Which one?

It's the barge scene where she goes crazy.

As far as finances, production, everything, was it considered at all risky changing Edwin to Evelyn and not a video game action hero, but a real woman?

I think the biggest risk in making this movie was we played with the audience's affiliation with the lead character. You know, I've been involved in 150 plus movies in different forms and ways, and [in] every single one of those, we did one thing the same, which was make sure you like that lead character, make sure you root for them. And this is the only time where I've been involved in a movie where you purposefully affect how the audience is feeling all the way through. I've talked to people after the movie and there are some people that feel really ambivalent about her at the end of the movie, but they still liked the movie. So I think that was the bigger risk. And she has an attitude that I think you know is going to work on an action level.

Is there any way this could have been made as a female lead if it wasn't Angelina Jolie, because she has been the only successful female action star for a decade now?

I can't think of anybody right now you could make at this scale; you'd have to have made a much less expensive movie and tried to launch something. I thought Jennifer Garner was going to do it, but she went the road of romantic comedy.

Why do you think Hollywood is afraid of casting women as leads in action movies?

I don't think they're afraid. I think we follow the audience. The audience has not been really receptive to it, you know, and hopefully this will change, but there's nobody else out there right now that has that thing that she has, so it's not easy to be an action star, male or female. There's not a lot of male action stars, if you think about it, right now either.

Has working on Salt inspired you to make more strong female movies in the future?

You know, the female audience has been the most fickle audience, so they're harder to make movies for, actually. We constantly have evidence of that over and over and over again. I felt really strongly on this project that it's not a female character; I felt it was a hero. That it's not gender-driven, it is methodology-driven. Iit was funny because Amy Pascal is the head of the studio, and Angie, they were telling me, "This is going to be gender-breaking," and I kept saying, "I don't really think that." I think it's about what you want out of that character, male or female. Fundamentally the action beats that that character had to take went through the same way. I hope it opens up for more female action movies. It'd be fun.

You mentioned this "thing" that Angelina Jolie has. Can you elaborate?

She, as an actress, is so committed that it's a great leeway as a producer. Steve McQueen is the guy I keep thinking about when I think about Angie. He wasn't a big guy. He had a ton of attitude, and you had absolute conviction that he was going to do what needed to get done. She has a ton of attitude. She's not a big woman, not a big person, but you absolutely believe she can succeed. You totally buy her as she's going through knocking one Secret Service agent out after the other.

The script has changed so much, but what was it like when you optioned it?

The thing that hooked me was the moment when the Russian says, "Then you're the spy." When you read that in the draft, it was like, I'm in. Like, almost anything could have happened after that. When I watch the movie, that's still the moment where I go, yeah, okay, here we go. In the third act is really where the preponderance of changes that occurred from the script to actually making the movie.

On the list of great film adaptations of Stephen King books-- Carrie, The Shining, even The Green Mile-- you're unlikely to find Pet Sematary, a 1989 film which New York Times critic Vincent Canby said at the time "fails mostly because it doesn't trust the audience to do any of the work."

So if the only film adaptation of the still-beloved book has been forgotten, why not reboot it? That's the logic over at Paramount, where producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has hired screenwriter Matthew Greenberg to adapt the material. THR notes he was also responsible for 1408 , another King adaptation that hit the screens in 2007.

It's been a long time since a King adaptation made a real impact on wide audiences, but it doesn't seem like Sematary will be the one to do it-- it leans closer to the horror side of King's personality than the emotional one. I mean, the main villain is the resurrected corpse of a three-year-old. Sounds terrifying, but also something I would like to avoid at all costs. I also wonder if they'll have to ditch the Indian burial ground angle, given how un-PC it is. Can we come up with another mystical force that might have the power to create toddler zombies?

With the Harry Potter series finishing its 11-year run in 2011, wizard wannabes will be craving something of the magical realm. According to Variety, Lorenzo di Bonaventura and his Di Bonaventura Pictures have something to fill the void.

The G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra producer will bring Michael Scott’s six-book series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel to the big screen. If the name Nicholas Flamel sounds familiar, you’re right. First and foremost, he’s a real person. Born in 1330, Nicolas Flamel (yes, the real guy is minus the ‘H’) was a French alchemist famous for his work on the philosopher’s stone, a substance rumored to have the ability to turn metals into gold. It also had a reputation of being an elixir of life, hence, the mention of Flamel in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. In the movie, Nicholas Flamel is the maker of the Philosopher’s Stone, the object Voldemort attempts to steal in order to regain his human-like form.

di Bonaventura calls Scott’s books “a natural evolution from Harry Potter.” The series focuses on two 15-year-old twins, Sophie and Josh, who travel the world alongside Flamel. The first three books, The Alchemyst, The Magician and The Sorceress are available now and the fourth book, The Necromancer, is scheduled to be published in May.

New Line and Mark Burnett originally nabbed the rights to the books back in 2006, but the six-picture franchises they envisioned never came to be. di Bonaventura doesn’t have the greatest critical track record, but he can boost some pretty impressive box office showings thanks to his work on both Transformers movies. Money can’t buy quality, but at least he’s well aware of what makes an alluring film. If the Flamel series is anything like Harry Potter, it’ll be exciting to see this project take form.

To read more about the books of The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, check out the website here.

For months we've suspected there's something a little off about G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, whether it's the goofy looking super-suit Channing Tatum wears or the fact that the only effects shot we ever see is the Eiffel Tower crumbling, over and over again, into a big pile of green powder.

But if the chatter on the Don Murphy message boards (via Vulture) is to be believed, this isn't just going to be your average silly summer movie. This might be an even bigger turkey than Land of the Lost. "After a test screening wherein the film tested the lowest score ever from an audience in the history of Paramount, the executive who pushed for the movie, Brad Weston, had Stephen Sommers, the super hack director of the film fired. Removed. Locked out of the editing room."

The poster is reporting that producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura was kicked off the production as well, but Bonaventura, speaking to Latino Review, obviously had a different story to tell. "It's completely untrue. [Sommers] was never asked to leave or been fired or any of that. That’s ridiculous. The movie tested very well." The guys at Latino Review had also been hearing about positive test scores, though who their sources were for that they don't say.

It's hard to trust anyone in this situation, since a message board poster can say whatever the hell they want, and di Bonaventura has a lot riding on debunking any rumors and promising that everything about the movie is spectacular. The proof is probably somewhere in-between-- the G.I. Joe footage doesn't look good no matter what, and Sommers-- whose previous films include The Mummy and Van Helsing-- is probably getting the blame.

Di Bonaventura has plenty more to say at Latino Review, and he'll probably get the final word in this battle-- secrets don't get leaked from the editing room all that often. But if G.I. Joe comes out on August 7 and bombs horribly, well, you've been warned.