The Energon Pub

by **Sonray** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:14 am

AlienQuiksilver wrote:Mass shifting was in the film. Watch the Allspark transform again. All TF's were brought to life by the Allspark, so that could obviously give them the ability to do the same thing.

As humans, we cannot fully understand their technology. It SHOULDN'T make sense to us. Maybe their atoms condense when they transform. Maybe they transform on a subatomic level? Our eyes aren't going to see that.
Also, the extra mass could be converted into concentrated energon that is stored in their weapons ... making bot mode significantly more powerful. Which is why they tend to fight in their alt modes 99% of the time?

Using logic against something that our entire race cannot fully understand is kinda pointless. The technology that was reverse engineered from Megatron was just scratching the surface of something that is obviously more involved than a computer chip.

Of course this is all fictitious, but still. I don't get why people are so hung up on how big everything was. Have an imagination about it!

QFT!!!!!!!

by **dbz77** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:35 am

Jazzz wrote:Or how Optimus's feet are the size of cars or can hold two people in his hands.

What about when Optimus held the glasses?

Michael

by **Rushie** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:22 am

Sonray wrote:most of the time the CGI wasnt even needed and when a film uses too much CGI instead of just building a real set or doing some stunt for real i start to loose respect for that film.

Watch the making of. They made everything that could be made in real life, which includes starfighters (exterior and interior) and many interior sets like the Chancellor's office and the Destroyer command deck. The huge chamber in which the Dooku duel took place was real too, sake for the bluescreen windows ofcourse. Yeah, they didn't build the ginormous Senate chamber, since it would be impossible and they made miniatures for many exterior shots of buildings and planetscapes.
The pit city? Every teeny tiny house in the cliffside was carefully sculpted.
The volcano world? Even the lava was some real chemical stuff.

Real stunts? Please, you're not even trying. The stuntmen complained they had too little to do, because the real character actors were devoted to train for months in order to rehearse those lightsaber battles. There's two or three shots of stunt actors falling and maybe half a dozen CGI jumps. The actors pulled off all those amazing fighting moves in real time and in a continous string. Not real enough for you?

by **crashbarbarian** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:59 pm

my only gripe was the same as alot of you... the size scale keeps bothering me. blackout as a helicopter is gigantic... in the first scene when he lands you can easily tell that he is 5 or 6 times bigger than a humvee... but in robot mode he seems the same size as optimus. starscream is a huge plane, like 40ft long... he isn't even 40 ft tall in the movie? And optimus hands easily being able to fit two people in them seems ludicris... if thats the case his hands would make up the bulk of whats under his hood in truck form... but by the transformation you can tell that theres a lot of stuff under that hood besides hands, and megs compared to jazz still really frustrates me... megs foot is as big as jazz... come on... ..this, other than john turtruos character might be my only gripes in the whole movie, which is quickly becoming my favorite movie of all time!

News Credits: 1 · by ***Galvatron*** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:52 pm

Dark Zarak wrote:
***Galvatron*** wrote:I think the comparison of a gorilla to a robot is not really fair, it's apples and oranges because with a gorilla they have an actual living breathing real creature to compare it to and model it after, all they did was just make it look larger in scale to a building etc where ILM had to start from scratch literally and build every piece individually and make them fit into a being that does not actually exist in the real world so I would still give them extra points for that alone.

We aren't comparing gorillas to robots. (Trukk not munky!!) We're comparing directing styles.

Michael Bay didn't know what to do with the TF's. He's too much of a traditional action director. I'm glad to see the amount of practical effects shots in the movie like the bus on the freeway really blowing up. That's how things should be done, a mix of old and new. What works best, not what looks flashy. But Bay wasted the TF's in quick shots and shaky cameras. Peter Jackson on the other hand, definately knows how to use both CG and practical for his shots. King Kong looked beyond amazing because we were given a chance to see the monsters. Yes, they were real creatures, and the TF's weren't, but from a photography direction standpoint, King Kong is way better than Transformers.

(But I like TF's better. King Kong was King Long. Haven't watched it since the theater.)

And the issue of creating the robots is not an animation issue, it's a modeling issue, and there's no question about that. It was incredible.

The animation, on the other hand, was not always so good. The appearance of TF's running, for instance, was almost always bad. Too Ent-like. (Yeah, I know, that's Peter Jackson, but the Ents are supposed to look like Ents. The TF's aren't.)

Groundswell wrote:I want a better more believable Transformers 2. Is that too much to ask?

No, no it isn't. But we can nitpick the effects all we want. Everyone will have little bits that they don't like, since it isn't real and therefore has the potential to be wrong.

The effects were definately better than I expected, most of the time. I just want better writing. Effects always have been, and always will be, second fiddle to good writing.

Groundswell wrote:I'm sorry I can't relate to people who don't like Star Wars, there is just something totally wrong with that.

Correction: There was something totally wrong with that. Episodes 4 5 and 6 are cinematic genius.

Now, however, it's perfectly understandable. But I do so love the look of 2.... *sigh*

Directing styles ? perhaps partly but you are talking about two vastly different beings one that does exist and one that doesn't so who would have the upper hand and an easier job, that would be the people with something to model it after from the real world. These posts are also in the "We're you dispapointed in the effects for Transformers?" thread and not in the directors style thread so even so you are still talking about different movies but dealing with the same subject primarily and that's visual effects not directing styles.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:52 pm

This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

by **Groundswell** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:52 pm

Robinson wrote:This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

Quit flaming me! Ever heard of free speech? It's an inalienable right to all people. That includes me. Why do you have to be so negative and us profanity? This makes you seem like a not very respectable person. Their is nothing wrong with stirring the pot and getting people discussing. That's what a forum is for. If you don't like the topic, don't discuss it.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:03 pm

Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

Quit flaming me! Ever heard of free speech? It's an inalienable right to all people. That includes me. Why do you have to be so negative and us profanity? This makes you seem like a not very respectable person. Their is nothing wrong with stirring the pot and getting people discussing. That's what a forum is for. If you don't like the topic, don't discuss it.

Nice editing, I liked your original post better, it was more prolific and thought out.

I am not flaming you as you like to say, what I am pointing out is that you start a topic with a "controversial subject" and then you backtrack a few posts later. Yes I have heard of free speech, I am also of the opinion that although entitled to it, not everyone should excersise that entitlement.

by **Groundswell** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 pm

Robinson wrote:
Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

Quit flaming me! Ever heard of free speech? It's an inalienable right to all people. That includes me. Why do you have to be so negative and us profanity? This makes you seem like a not very respectable person. Their is nothing wrong with stirring the pot and getting people discussing. That's what a forum is for. If you don't like the topic, don't discuss it.

Nice editing, I liked your original post better, it was more prolific and correctly spelt.

I am not flaming you as you like to say, what I am pointing out is that you start a topic with a "controversial subject" and then you backtrack a few posts later. Yes I have heard of free speech, I am also of the opinion that although entitled to it, not everyone should excersise that entitlement.

Maybe you should start a topic on it then? Then you can post on something you're interested in. Please kindly leave me alone.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:17 pm

Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

Quit flaming me! Ever heard of free speech? It's an inalienable right to all people. That includes me. Why do you have to be so negative and us profanity? This makes you seem like a not very respectable person. Their is nothing wrong with stirring the pot and getting people discussing. That's what a forum is for. If you don't like the topic, don't discuss it.

Nice editing, I liked your original post better, it was more prolific and correctly spelt.

I am not flaming you as you like to say, what I am pointing out is that you start a topic with a "controversial subject" and then you backtrack a few posts later. Yes I have heard of free speech, I am also of the opinion that although entitled to it, not everyone should excersise that entitlement.

Maybe you should start a topic on it then? Then you can post on something you're interested in. Please kindly leave me alone.

I have started a few topics in my time, what I am saying is that you shouldn't start a topic just to start a topic only to backtrack on your opinion later on. If you starta topic and it is based on an opinion, hold true to it and not fall back, then you won't have people "flaming" you when they notice a pattern.

by **AlienQuiksilver** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:32 am

Robinson wrote:
Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Groundswell wrote:
Robinson wrote:This is the third of fourth thread from this guy that starts with "I hated one of the biggest aspects of the movie that everyone else loves but don't get me wrong I loved the movie"

And then a little later it says "I loved to stir the ****"

We don't need people creating threads that have been dicussed over and over again just to stir the ****. You are attempting to incite people and its pretty damn stupid to do so.

Btw, we don't need to know that you used spell check on every post because you couldn't spell some pretty basic words in one of your other posts.

Quit flaming me! Ever heard of free speech? It's an inalienable right to all people. That includes me. Why do you have to be so negative and us profanity? This makes you seem like a not very respectable person. Their is nothing wrong with stirring the pot and getting people discussing. That's what a forum is for. If you don't like the topic, don't discuss it.

Nice editing, I liked your original post better, it was more prolific and correctly spelt.

I am not flaming you as you like to say, what I am pointing out is that you start a topic with a "controversial subject" and then you backtrack a few posts later. Yes I have heard of free speech, I am also of the opinion that although entitled to it, not everyone should excersise that entitlement.

Maybe you should start a topic on it then? Then you can post on something you're interested in. Please kindly leave me alone.

I have started a few topics in my time, what I am saying is that you shouldn't start a topic just to start a topic only to backtrack on your opinion later on. If you starta topic and it is based on an opinion, hold true to it and not fall back, then you won't have people "flaming" you when they notice a pattern.