Transformers 3 - Moving Office Platform Set Video

Explosions!!! Needz moar explozinz!

Wow! Really quite cool!

But I'm wondering how long this sequence will be in the film; something tells me it'll last for a few seconds and we'll hardly remember seeing it because of shaky-cam!

Swiftknife24 wrote:Wow! Really quite cool!

But I'm wondering how long this sequence will be in the film; something tells me it'll last for a few seconds and we'll hardly remember seeing it because of shaky-cam!

Exactly.....
For me this seems like overkill. I mean, I can't understand the practicality of it.....it doesn't help with the shot tracking because if your raw footage is nothing but XCU's (Extreme close up shots....Storyboarding lingo there) and quick cuts with no real tracking pan shot that all still has to be tracked by the FX guys to insert giant robts here here here and....here. You could easily fake a tilting building with a simple camera move and some rigged props or even CG them in....verses building this omstrosity which I don't see as cost effective. Especially if the movement is that slow..I was xpecting this thing to buck like a bronco but eh, I guess if you have the money to waste.

Another random rant, I just like to break apart shots and find simple solutions being I've worked on exrememly low budget independent films and figuring out how to mimic comples shots with the least amount of money and effort just is second nature.

But yeah, if the shots are all XCU's, I think this would be a waste if the camera doesn't pan out or do a H or V Pan (Horizontal or Vertical)
Laters,
Josh

Joshua Vallse wrote:

Swiftknife24 wrote:Wow! Really quite cool!

But I'm wondering how long this sequence will be in the film; something tells me it'll last for a few seconds and we'll hardly remember seeing it because of shaky-cam!

Exactly.....
For me this seems like overkill. I mean, I can't understand the practicality of it.....it doesn't help with the shot tracking because if your raw footage is nothing but XCU's (Extreme close up shots....Storyboarding lingo there) and quick cuts with no real tracking pan shot that all still has to be tracked by the FX guys to insert giant robts here here here and....here. You could easily fake a tilting building with a simple camera move and some rigged props or even CG them in....verses building this omstrosity which I don't see as cost effective. Especially if the movement is that slow..I was xpecting this thing to buck like a bronco but eh, I guess if you have the money to waste.

Another random rant, I just like to break apart shots and find simple solutions being I've worked on exrememly low budget independent films and figuring out how to mimic comples shots with the least amount of money and effort just is second nature.

But yeah, if the shots are all XCU's, I think this would be a waste if the camera doesn't pan out or do a H or V Pan (Horizontal or Vertical)
Laters,
Josh

You know your stuff!

I think the only real benefit of a practical set like that is for the actors; their basic stance and reactions to the environment (then again, like we say; too close-up to tell)...Of course the camera could tilt instead, but a camera is more reliable than an actor! Hehe

these movies fail

Swiftknife24 wrote: quite cool!

But I'm wondering how long this sequence will be in the film; something tells me it'll last for a few seconds and we'll hardly remember seeing it because of shaky-cam!

I think they did a great job of slowing things down in the last movie. No reason why they wouldn't carry this out to the 3rd movie.

Joshua Vallse wrote:Exactly.....
For me this seems like overkill. I mean, I can't understand the practicality of it.....it doesn't help with the shot tracking because if your raw footage is nothing but XCU's (Extreme close up shots....Storyboarding lingo there) and quick cuts with no real tracking pan shot that all still has to be tracked by the FX guys to insert giant robts here here here and....here. You could easily fake a tilting building with a simple camera move and some rigged props or even CG them in....verses building this omstrosity which I don't see as cost effective. Especially if the movement is that slow..I was xpecting this thing to buck like a bronco but eh, I guess if you have the money to waste.

Another random rant, I just like to break apart shots and find simple solutions being I've worked on exrememly low budget independent films and figuring out how to mimic comples shots with the least amount of money and effort just is second nature.

But yeah, if the shots are all XCU's, I think this would be a waste if the camera doesn't pan out or do a H or V Pan (Horizontal or Vertical)
Laters,
Josh

I don't think anyone can really judge or criticize the use of this platform since we don't have any clue how the shot is going to pan out. While i can understand and respect where your coming from if you do have experience working with film projects in the past, you must remember this isn't a low budget indie film. I fail to see how a simple "turn of the camera" would be suffice to mimic the effects of this scene. I'd imagine it can be pretty hard to fake running up and incline, or furniture falling/tilting over. Point being, if the same scene could have been duplicated by just a simple "turn of the camera", then i don't see them building a multi million dollar tilting building. Even if the effect could be "similar", it still wouldn't be real so to speak.

Swiftknife24 wrote:You know your stuff!

I think the only real benefit of a practical set like that is for the actors; their basic stance and reactions to the environment (then again, like we say; too close-up to tell)...Of course the camera could tilt instead, but a camera is more reliable than an actor! Hehe

Exactly.

If they have the budget then lets do it right instead of half assing.

5150 Cruiser]
I don't think anyone can really judge or criticize the use of this platform since we don't have any clue how the shot is going to pan out. While i can understand and respect where your coming from if you do have experience working with film projects in the past, you must remember this isn't a low budget indie film. I fail to see how a simple "turn of the camera" would be suffice to mimic the effects of this scene. I'd imagine it can be pretty hard to fake running up and incline, or furniture falling/tilting over. Point being, if the same scene could have been duplicated by just a simple "turn of the camera", then i don't see them building a multi million dollar tilting building. Even if the effect could be "similar", it still wouldn't be real so to speak.
[quote="Swiftknife24 wrote:You know your stuff!
I think the only real benefit of a practical set like that is for the actors; their basic stance and reactions to the environment (then again, like we say; too close-up to tell)...Of course the camera could tilt instead, but a camera is more reliable than an actor! Hehe

Exactly.
If they have the budget then lets do it right instead of half assing.[/quote]

LOL, I loved the part where it was....

"I respect your opinion, and we shouldn't judge....don't half ass it!"

Ahhhhh, well really this was a critique of Bay's filming style of the Tf movies so far and if this monstrosity is justified being he uses nothing but XCU's for alot of his character driven action shots. That being the case, you could do a simple camera tilt because the shot is so tight you wouldn't even see your surroundings anyways and could pretty much throw furnature (Though, I suggested whole a$$ CGI props if you will) if needed and the effect would be the same. It's not an issue of half-assing, just a matter of whats practical. Also, as I addressed in the last line, there are ways to which this behemoth would be practical, that being a H or V-Pan or some kind of non close up tracking shot....but if there isn't then...yeah, it's pretty much a waste of money. See, I left Bay an out there......Besides, these methods are used y every director, Speilberg, Lucas, Cameron, JJ. Abrhams, I would hardly call them half A$$ed LOL
Ah Cruiser, seeing what you want yet failing to read whats needed.
The War Rages onward!
Josh

Aarhhh!! Ha ha! No war here man. Just think we should give the man a chance, that's all. I welcome are little "wars" as you call them. At least you don't get all girly and personal about it. (not that their anything wrong with that. ). In all, we really don't have a hell of alot to go by right now anyways. Its all speculation.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Aarhhh!! Ha ha! No war here man. Just think we should give the man a chance, that's all. I welcome are little "wars" as you call them. At least you don't get all girly and personal about it. (not that their anything wrong with that. ). In all, we really don't have a hell of alot to go by right now anyways. Its all speculation.

Ha ha, me...personal, Nah! Honestly I don't see the point, I mean we're all here to have fun really, and as open as I am to critique Bay and the Production crew, I'm all for being critiqued myself. I apreciate being questioned, cause it keeps me honest ya know? The verbage you choose though was too funny, I had to pounce on that LOL. But for the most we have a good laugh at the end, which is always good.

Anyways, none of us will prob ever meet each other so there's no point being worked up. Well maybe accept me being my mug is posted all over this forum, I prob have a hit out on me just for being pro-Megan Fox