Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

SlyTF1 wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:Instead of degrading the quality of CGI used, why not just... I don't know... rely less on CGI, and more on stuff that's actually there? Animatronics and "guy in a suit" effects" have served us pretty well in the past. Also, reducing the complexity of the transformations would take a chunk out of the CGI budget AND produce better-looking robots as a result.

Better looking my ass. They'd look like crap!!! A damn guy in a robot costume walking around and pretending to transform into a car does not look good.

Hahaha.

Hey, atleast it looks 100% real... and didn't cost much.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Hey, atleast it looks 100% real... and didn't cost much.

You have no idea about how much money, time or effort goes into one of those.

MINDVVIPE wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:Instead of degrading the quality of CGI used, why not just... I don't know... rely less on CGI, and more on stuff that's actually there? Animatronics and "guy in a suit" effects" have served us pretty well in the past. Also, reducing the complexity of the transformations would take a chunk out of the CGI budget AND produce better-looking robots as a result.

Better looking my ass. They'd look like crap!!! A damn guy in a robot costume walking around and pretending to transform into a car does not look good.

Hahaha.

Hey, atleast it looks 100% real... and didn't cost much.

Do you really think the same effects they use for Power Rangers and Godzilla movies would work today? People would be rolling on the floor laughing as soon as they showed up on screen.

MINDVVIPE wrote:I don't believe that. You have to spend more time to come up with or refine your story and characters; that time is money.

Orci and Kurtzman wrote how many scripts in 2006, exactly?

SlyTF1 wrote:Better looking my ass. They'd look like crap!!! A damn guy in a robot costume walking around and pretending to transform into a car does not look good.

Obviously, costumes wouldn't be used for the transformation sequences. But if you just have the characters standing around and talking, there's no reason why that has to be animated. The actors' movements would have to look right, too. Remember Robocop?

I also think there's a type of animation that has yet to be developed; namely, a hybrid of go-motion and bullet-time (both of which were variations on stop-motion), in which the animation is first done as stop-motion and then computers calculate and add motion blur by comparing consecutive frames.

Bottom line: using CGI for everything is the lazy, expensive way, and we shouldn't assume that every single second of on-screen robots will be cooked up as textures and wireframes.

SlyTF1 wrote:Because I hate fully CGI movies!

And you are but one out of millions of moviegoers. Besides, while done in full CGI, such movies as Beowulf, The Polar Express, and even that awful Mars Needs Moms movie had such brilliant CGI that at times looked more like live action than not.

cotss2012 wrote:Instead of degrading the quality of CGI used, why not just... I don't know... rely less on CGI, and more on stuff that's actually there? Animatronics and "guy in a suit" effects have served us pretty well in the past.

Erm, I dunno. Maybe if the Japanese did it for a Transformers Tokusatsu*, but I can't seen it done for a Hollywood movie.

* - I once made a thread about how Masterforce might work as a Tokusatsu.


Also, it IS possible to diminish the complexity of the robot designs for live action CGI and have them still look good. Just look at this video. These are the G1 designs, yet these CG models (with some slight modifications to look a tad bit more realistic) would totally fit in a live action production.

Sabrblade wrote:Also, it IS possible to diminish the complexity of the robot designs for live action CGI and have them still look good.

"Still" look good? They'd look better than those piles of metal shavings that we saw in theaters! That's why I suggested simplifying the designs instead of going with overall lower-quality CGI.

cotss2012 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:Also, it IS possible to diminish the complexity of the robot designs for live action CGI and have them still look good.

"Still" look good? They'd look better than those piles of metal shavings that we saw in theaters! That's why I suggested simplifying the designs instead of going with overall lower-quality CGI.

Simplified designs would look stupid in live action. As would people running around in costumes.

cotss2012 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:Also, it IS possible to diminish the complexity of the robot designs for live action CGI and have them still look good.

"Still" look good? They'd look better than those piles of metal shavings that we saw in theaters! That's why I suggested simplifying the designs instead of going with overall lower-quality CGI.

I said "good", not "great".

SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.

Didn't you see the video I posted?

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.

Didn't you see the video I posted?

I did. Like 500 times. But they're not interacting with real people. If they where, they'd look dumb as hell.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.

Didn't you see the video I posted?

I did. Like 500 times. But they're not interacting with real people. If they where, they'd look dumb as hell.

Can you prove it?