Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "BATMAN AND ROBIN AND HOWARD #3 DC Comics 2024 0324DC129 (W/A/CA) Brown"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/batman+robin+howard/03/t-DSC06088.jpg)
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.
MINDVVIPE wrote:Hey, atleast it looks 100% real... and didn't cost much.
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.
NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:me and my friends combine all the time. Sometimes I even combine by myself if no one is around.
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.
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.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
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.SlyTF1 wrote:Because I hate fully CGI movies!
Erm, I dunno. Maybe if the Japanese did it for a Transformers Tokusatsu*, but I can't seen it done for a Hollywood movie.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.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Also, it IS possible to diminish the complexity of the robot designs for live action CGI and have them still look good.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
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".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.
Didn't you see the video I posted?SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Didn't you see the video I posted?SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.
Can you prove it?SlyTF1 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Didn't you see the video I posted?SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.
I did. Like 500 times. But they're not interacting with real people. If they where, they'd look dumb as hell.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Can you prove it?SlyTF1 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Didn't you see the video I posted?SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.
I did. Like 500 times. But they're not interacting with real people. If they where, they'd look dumb as hell.
To you, maybe. Can you prove it with facts?SlyTF1 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Can you prove it?SlyTF1 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Didn't you see the video I posted?SlyTF1 wrote:Simplified designs would look stupid in live action.
I did. Like 500 times. But they're not interacting with real people. If they where, they'd look dumb as hell.
It looks like a video game.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:me and my friends combine all the time. Sometimes I even combine by myself if no one is around.
There is a good compromising solution to this. Recall how the Binaltech/Alternators and Alternity designs looked. Those designs were more visually simple than the movie designs, yet complex enough to change from realistic vehicle modes with intact interiors. The Robot Mode designs hearkened back to G1 while updating them a bit with more modern day styles and engineering. These designs are like a halfway point between the insectoid Bionicle looks of the Movies CGI models and the more simplistic G1 character designs. Something like that could suffice for a simpler yet still realistic live action design.Evil_the_Nub wrote:I don't think simpler designs would work for a live action Transformers movie. Lets take Optimus for example, his arms and head go into the cab of the truck when he transforms. So where is the interior of the truck supposed to go? You can't have all that mass just appear and disappear like it did in G1. That was something that always bothered me as a kid. Parts would just disappear and other parts would reappear out of nowhere. It made them look like they were made of play-doh or something.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:There is a good compromising solution to this. Recall how the Binaltech/Alternators and Alternity designs looked. Those designs were more visually simple than the movie designs, yet complex enough to change from realistic vehicle modes with intact interiors. The Robot Mode designs hearkened back to G1 while updating them a bit with more modern day styles and engineering. These designs are like a halfway point between the insectoid Bionicle looks of the Movies CGI models and the more simplistic G1 character designs. Something like that could suffice for a simpler yet still realistic live action design.Evil_the_Nub wrote:I don't think simpler designs would work for a live action Transformers movie. Lets take Optimus for example, his arms and head go into the cab of the truck when he transforms. So where is the interior of the truck supposed to go? You can't have all that mass just appear and disappear like it did in G1. That was something that always bothered me as a kid. Parts would just disappear and other parts would reappear out of nowhere. It made them look like they were made of play-doh or something.
NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:me and my friends combine all the time. Sometimes I even combine by myself if no one is around.
Of course, there would be some modifications made to the Alternators design to makes them more articulated. Though, not all of them has huge single piece torsos. Sideswipe's chest was simple in design, but complex in engineering with a bunch of parts folding inward and such.Evil_the_Nub wrote:Sabrblade wrote:There is a good compromising solution to this. Recall how the Binaltech/Alternators and Alternity designs looked. Those designs were more visually simple than the movie designs, yet complex enough to change from realistic vehicle modes with intact interiors. The Robot Mode designs hearkened back to G1 while updating them a bit with more modern day styles and engineering. These designs are like a halfway point between the insectoid Bionicle looks of the Movies CGI models and the more simplistic G1 character designs. Something like that could suffice for a simpler yet still realistic live action design.Evil_the_Nub wrote:I don't think simpler designs would work for a live action Transformers movie. Lets take Optimus for example, his arms and head go into the cab of the truck when he transforms. So where is the interior of the truck supposed to go? You can't have all that mass just appear and disappear like it did in G1. That was something that always bothered me as a kid. Parts would just disappear and other parts would reappear out of nowhere. It made them look like they were made of play-doh or something.
True, but there's also the issue of being covered in large solid panels. Most of the Alternators have huge chests made from one solid piece of the car. That would severely limit their range of motion in robot mode. In the movie they have to do 3 very complex tasks, be a vehicle, be a robot, and switch between the 2. I think the only way to make that work in live action is to give them a complex design.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
Sabrblade wrote: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.SlyTF1 wrote:Because I hate fully CGI movies!
Sabrblade wrote: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)
Flps or not, they still had impressive animation quality, which is what I was getting at primarily.Dagon wrote:And, since that is used to hush people who didn't like the Transformers movies, it is a perfectly applicable response here.
The movies you mention were flops, but from my understanding, it wasn't because of the CGI. Only one I saw was Beowulf, and the cgi was not what was wrong with that film, I will tell you.
It was just an example. I'm no Geewunner. The fact that the designs are G1 is superfluous. The main objective was that they are less complex designs that look realistic in that video (they just happen to be G1 designs), thus proving that the Movie designs don't need to resemble walking trash-heaps to look believable in live action.Dagon wrote:OMFG THIS IS NOT G1!!!!!!!!!
Thank you.Dagon wrote:But, idiocy aside, I think it stupid to believe that the live action designs are utterly unsustainable without an overkill of complexity. Having no engineering credentials to my name, I still would bet that Bayverse Prime would look believable if you didn't seen a whole bunch of spinning gears in his shoulder during a close up. I think that at some point we have to see the uber-complexity as being designers and animators kind of showing off their skills to some extent, which is completely fine. Kind of like "Hey, look at how many moving parts we can animate at once!" And I am not saying that isn't cool, just that I doubt it's totally necessary. So I think the designs could be simplified a little if the situation called for it.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Flps or not, they still had impressive animation quality, which is what I was getting at primarily.Dagon wrote:And, since that is used to hush people who didn't like the Transformers movies, it is a perfectly applicable response here.
The movies you mention were flops, but from my understanding, it wasn't because of the CGI. Only one I saw was Beowulf, and the cgi was not what was wrong with that film, I will tell you.It was just an example. I'm no Geewunner. The fact that the designs are G1 is superfluous. The main objective was that they are less complex designs that look realistic in that video (they just happen to be G1 designs), thus proving that the Movie designs don't need to resemble walking trash-heaps to look believable in live action.Dagon wrote:OMFG THIS IS NOT G1!!!!!!!!!Thank you.Dagon wrote:But, idiocy aside, I think it stupid to believe that the live action designs are utterly unsustainable without an overkill of complexity. Having no engineering credentials to my name, I still would bet that Bayverse Prime would look believable if you didn't seen a whole bunch of spinning gears in his shoulder during a close up. I think that at some point we have to see the uber-complexity as being designers and animators kind of showing off their skills to some extent, which is completely fine. Kind of like "Hey, look at how many moving parts we can animate at once!" And I am not saying that isn't cool, just that I doubt it's totally necessary. So I think the designs could be simplified a little if the situation called for it.
In fact, I think even the Prime designs would acceptable in live action. Or the WFC/FOC designs.Dagon wrote:On the first part, I knew what you meant. That's why I said that their being flops was not due to their CGI. All I saw was Beowulf, and it was marvelously animated. It's problems were not due to animation.
The not G1 thing was for my own personal laffs, as any time G1 is mentioned in this forum, people wet the bed with cries that these movies aren't G1. So, I had laffs.
But in summation, I agreed with you that the designs don't need mind-bending complexity in order to seem realistic.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]