Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store






Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
No. That was no mistake because this movie is gorgeous. There is no reason to make a fully animated film look photorealistic if there is nothing actually realistic in the movie to juxtapose it with (hello Disney's Lion King remake).-Kanrabat- wrote:Mistake #1 was to not make the movie in the same style as the intro of the Bee Movie.
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:No. That was no mistake because this movie is gorgeous. There is no reason to make a fully animated film look photorealistic if there is nothing actually realistic in the movie to juxtapose it with (hello Disney's Lion King remake).-Kanrabat- wrote:Mistake #1 was to not make the movie in the same style as the intro of the Bee Movie.
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
Agreed on both counts.-Kanrabat- wrote:Mistake #1 was to not make the movie in the same style as the intro of the Bee Movie.
And mistake #2 was the minimal marketing. Sure, the usual fans were already sold with the toys and overall fidelity. But the casuals were ignored. A shame.
Rodimus Prime wrote:The movie as it is looks pretty good. But it never establishes the illusion that these are actual living beings.
Photorealistic CGI is still animation. It's impossible to make a truly live-action movie if there's nothing actually shot in live-action in the movie. No matter how realistic it appears, photorealistic CGI is still animation. I go back to Disney's "live action" remake of The Lion King. That movie was 99.9% animated with photorealistic CGI with no actual live action shots in it other than the opening shot of the sun rising over the horizon at the beginning of the movie. After that, everything for the remainder of that film was completely animated.Rodimus Prime wrote:The way TFOne looks, we all knew it was gonna be an animated movie, and not a movie with CGI in 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.'
Rodimus Prime wrote:For all of Bayverse's faults, when I was looking at the screen I was convinced (or at least could easily pretend) that I was looking at metallic living beings.
Rodimus Prime wrote:If we had gotten the style of the opening scene of Bumblebee, which was the best part of the movie aside from perhaps the fight scene with Bee and the triplechangers, it would have gone a long way in helping the general audience decide to see it. The way TFOne looks, we all knew it was gonna be an animated movie, and not a movie with CGI in it.
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
And here I think we've reached the crux of the matter, that it all comes back to the longstanding belief that live-action is superior to animation because, supposedly, live-action is for grownups and mature audiences while animation is for children, losers, and stupid people. That photorealism is somehow better than illustrated artwork.Glyph wrote:but a whole movie that looked like that would have been (a) incredibly expensive and (b) targeted very much at older fans, not new kids and casuals.
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.'
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
Bang your head all you want, it still won't change the fact that not everyone thinks like you. What you have are opinions and others are allowed to have differing ones.Sabrblade wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:The movie as it is looks pretty good. But it never establishes the illusion that these are actual living beings.
Fair enough. So let me rephrase. The animation in Bayverse looks much more organic than in TFOne. Again let me stress that I really liked TFOne. I even liked the animation. But just as with TF:Prime or TF:TM before it, I knew I was looking at animation. In Bayverse, I was able to suspend my disbelief and think I was looking at a real living alien machine on the screen who had just as much life as the human characters. With TFOne that's not the case. I still prefer the complete lack of humans, so no real complaints. But speaking strictly of the art style used, Bayverse still looks more believable.Photorealistic CGI is still animation. It's impossible to make a truly live-action movie if there's nothing actually shot in live-action in the movie. No matter how realistic it appears, photorealistic CGI is still animation.Rodimus Prime wrote:The way TFOne looks, we all knew it was gonna be an animated movie, and not a movie with CGI in it.
To each her/his own. Bayverse wasn't perfect visually by any means. But as I explained in my response to Sabrblade, I still had easier time believing I was looking at a real living being in the live action films. Perhaps because real humans were also included in the scene?Glyph wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:For all of Bayverse's faults, when I was looking at the screen I was convinced (or at least could easily pretend) that I was looking at metallic living beings.
Really? Because one of the big issues I had with the Bayverse films was that the robots never felt right in the scene to me - they always seemed floaty, or the physics didn't sell, or some other thing. They always just looked like special effects IMO, and not at a level I expected from ILM. #shrug#
Full stop. You suppose correctly.Matter of taste I suppose
Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release. Just seems that the producers already knew this would mainly appeal to TF fans so they just put it out there and didn't bother serious marketing to children. Which should anger Hasbro because that damaged their promotion of the toyline.I maintain that the timing of release - back to school, sandwiched between Beetlejuice and TWR, staggered by almost a month overseas - did far more to hurt its chances than the style. But who knows, in the end - there's a lot of variables in play.
It seems they went with September to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the G1 cartoon. But a May release would have better coincided with the actual 40th anniversary of the whole brand.Rodimus Prime wrote:Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release. Just seems that the producers already knew this would mainly appeal to TF fans so they just put it out there and didn't bother serious marketing to children. Which should anger Hasbro because that damaged their promotion of the toyline.
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.'
Absolutely Agreed. May 8th to be exact. It was a Wednesday, would've given the movie a nice 5-day opening.Sabrblade wrote:It seems they went with September to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the G1 cartoon. But a May release would have better coincided with the actual 40th anniversary of the whole brand.Rodimus Prime wrote:Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release. Just seems that the producers already knew this would mainly appeal to TF fans so they just put it out there and didn't bother serious marketing to children. Which should anger Hasbro because that damaged their promotion of the toyline.
The only real competition it would have faced had it been released in May would have been Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes and IF. Which, admittedly, is some pretty steep competition, but we'll never know what might have happened, alas.Rodimus Prime wrote:Absolutely Agreed. May 8th to be exact. It was a Wednesday, would've given the movie a nice 5-day opening.Sabrblade wrote:It seems they went with September to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the G1 cartoon. But a May release would have better coincided with the actual 40th anniversary of the whole brand.Rodimus Prime wrote:Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release. Just seems that the producers already knew this would mainly appeal to TF fans so they just put it out there and didn't bother serious marketing to children. Which should anger Hasbro because that damaged their promotion of the toyline.
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.'
it lays the smackdown on Transformers One’s candy ass
Sabrblade wrote:It seems they went with September to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the G1 cartoon. But a May release would have better coincided with the actual 40th anniversary of the whole brand.Rodimus Prime wrote:Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release.
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
September 20.Glyph wrote:Sabrblade wrote:It seems they went with September to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the G1 cartoon. But a May release would have better coincided with the actual 40th anniversary of the whole brand.Rodimus Prime wrote:Agreed on the timing. This should have been either a June release or even a March or April release.
As I understand it, it was supposed to be July 19 for the summer crowd, but pushed back to September 13 (presumably for final crunch because it wasn't ready) then again to September 25 to avoid the Beetlejuice premiere. Which then, ironically, only gave it one week before TWR.
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.'
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
Bumblevivisector wrote:Yeeesh, will's description's making me picture a future Robot Chicken sketch where The Wild Robot literally lands on Cybertron beats up the entire population.
The video mentioned that TF ONE still did better than TWR outside the U.S. this weekend, and that's making me wonder what countries each film was released in. But no amount of data mining can change the totals.
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Aubreybot, Bing [Bot], chuckdawg1999, Freezie, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, M.M.S., MSN [Bot], shabanowitz, sprockitz, SupersonicShockwave, UltOrange, victori, vintron, Yahoo [Bot]