The Energon Pub

by **Groundswell** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:54 pm

I'm of the opinion that the effects for Transformers were a bit shoddy. Much of the transforming and shots of the autobots and decepticons were too short, too animated looking. If movies like King Kong and Star Wars Revenge of the Sith can create believe able other worldly landscapes and alien machinery why can't the Transformers look more real? Any thoughts peeps?

p.s. I used spell-check this time. Everyone should be happy now.

News Credits: 8 · by **Liege Evilmus** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:59 pm

My only complaint was with the speed the bots moved, to many of their details burred.

Oh and I'd like to have seen more of the robots and less of the people(except the blond chick, more of her)

by **Optimist Prime** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:18 pm

I thought they looked better than anything from King Kong or Star Wars. The transformation sequences could have been longer, I agree. Probably would cost alot more though.

by **Siren Prime** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:27 pm

Are you kidding me?
The effects were awesome!!!

Sure the shots were a little shakey and the was WAY to much human screen time, but it looked great.
Even my mom thought it was amazing.

News Credits: 1 · by **Jeysie** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:28 pm

I actually was seriously impressed with the S/FX. It's probably the least CGI-looking/most realistic CGI I've ever seen in a movie up to this point. I agree that it was better-looking than the Star Wars movies, IMHO. Industrial Light & Magic just keeps pushing their bar up.

I'll be very surprised if they don't get an Oscar nomination for the effects.

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:32 pm

I've never been more impressed with CGI characters in a live-action film. That one shot where Prime and Bonecrusher tumble over the bridge shows a bit of its origin, but that's about all I could think of.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:33 pm

No.

by **Siren Prime** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:34 pm

Burn wrote:No.

And THAT ladies and gents, is how Burn sums it up!!

by **Decatron** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:07 pm

From what was shown of Cybertron, was bland at most. I agree.

but as far the Transformers go, I feel they are better animated than anything the newer Star Wars have.

by **Abilor** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:27 pm

I'm of the *opinion* that you are a troll...

News Credits: 3 · by **Barricade** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:32 pm

my only complaint was of starscream's "motion blurr" transformation @ hover dam

by **Groundswell** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:50 pm

~Windcharger~ wrote:I thought they looked better than anything from King Kong or Star Wars. The transformation sequences could have been longer, I agree. Probably would cost alot more though.

Every one is entitled to their opinions. I think with all the money they made from the first one it's worth saying they owe all the fans a way better constructed machinary in the second one.

There is total disconnect from the machines from when they transform to their robot shape to their vehicle shape. I mean they even cut shots in of the actual GM vehicles right after they transformed. How cheesy. Hey I loved the movie don't get me wrong, but I'm wagering if they don't pull out all the effects on this second one you won't see the fan base you saw for the first.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:52 pm

I'm inclined to think you're crazy. The effects in this movie pushed the limits of what is possible. Not once did I think I was looking at something that wasn't there. King Kong and Episode III however completely broke my concentration. Every moment I was reminded by the CG that it wasn't real. Hell one of the huge pluses for this movie from fans and movie critics alike is how good the bots look.

by **cracker** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:47 am

I was just surprised to see if Mr. Feeny's voice was coming out of that car?
Cracker

by **TheStarScreamer** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:53 am

@ the OP:

Disclaimer...
I am first and foremost a SW fan and collector. I have been since I was like 7. I even loved TPM. I irrationally defend Lucas and his choices in writing and directing. I am a SW addict, far above TF.

Now, I was always infatuated by the effects of SW, Spider-Man, Matrix, and the like, even Bay's previous work in films like Armageddon and the Island. I went to see each SW prequel at least 5 times (10 for TPM) and never once thought any of the effects were cheesy and unrealistic. Same with Spider-Man 1-3.

Until I saw Transformers.

Now the last time I was so stunned by the visual effects in a movie was probably when I saw Empire back in about '90. Maybe I dropped a jaw a few times for Matrix films, and the opening and ending action scenes in ROTS. I still don't believe how amazing the effects are in this film. My son and I watch it several times a week, and the effects have yet to bore me. But we watched ROTS today and I was almost embarassed to be a SW fan for so long. Maybe it's just the fact that I watch TF in HD and SW in upscaled DVD, but even Spider-Man on Blu-Ray looks like a damn cartoon.

If anything, the effects in TF has ruined every other CGI effect ever made for me, simply by far surpassing anything that has been done to date.

Don't tell my rebelscum.com friends that I made fun of the PT. :lol:

News Credits: 1 · by **jacksonspade** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:18 am

Revenge of the Sith?? Really? I think it's time to stop watching Wizard of Oz with Pink Floyd playing. Then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

by **TheStarScreamer** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:28 am

ROTS was good. Like I said, I'm a huge fan. But the TF film is far more entertaining and visually impressive.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v722/matkatnadam/

by **Frenzy15** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:33 am

effects= excelent!

News Credits: 1 · by **doomboy536** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:18 am

The Movie was awesome, awesome like awesome socks. The effects were equally as awesome :grin:

by **iopele** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:05 am

My only complaint was that the battle scenes were shot in such a way that you could hardly tell what was going on. Extreme close-ups and blurred motion... I would have loved to have seen more of Bumblebee and Barricade's fight in particular.

But that was a directing choice (and possibly a budget shortfall) rather than a fault with the effects. All in all, I thought the transformations were incredible.

by **Satomiblood** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:43 am

Groundswell wrote:I'm of the opinion that the effects for Transformers were a bit shoddy. Much of the transforming and shots of the autobots and decepticons were too short, too animated looking. If movies like King Kong and Star Wars Revenge of the Sith can create believe able other worldly landscapes and alien machinery why can't the Transformers look more real? Any thoughts peeps?

p.s. I used spell-check this time. Everyone should be happy now.

The effects were the best I've ever seen and I'm not saying this from the stanpoint of a TF fan, but in general. I've seen a lot of recent movies where the CGI looked raw, unfinished, and out of place. All the Spiderman movies were guilty of this.

ILM did a tremendous job. There were literally thousands of parts for each character and the sequences themselves were perfect. Not one transformation was lacking. Some were more emphasized than others (i.e. Prime), but they were all great.

The most important aspect was lighting. ILM really made it so that the characters blended with their environments instead of having that cut-and-paste look.

I've watched this movie almost a dozen times and have replayed a lot of the sequences again and again. I'm just amazed at the intricate detail and lighting.

by **Sonray** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:15 pm

Are you insane?! The effects were mind blowing! They are the best i have seen since the original Matrix! Star Wars can kiss my ass,its effects were good but WAAAAAY too overused. King Kong....well they were good but the effects in Transformers just blew me away.

by **Rushie** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:27 pm

Sonray wrote:Star Wars can kiss my ass,its effects were good but WAAAAAY too overused.

Duh, for SW they had to create entirely new and inhabited worlds, not just some characters and the interaction with their live-action environment like in TF.

Saying SW overuses special effects is like saying Monty Python makes too many jokes.

by **Sonray** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:36 pm

Rushie wrote:
Sonray wrote:Star Wars can kiss my ass,its effects were good but WAAAAAY too overused.

Duh, for SW they had to create entirely new and inhabited worlds, not just some characters and the interaction with their live-action environment like in TF.

Saying SW overuses special effects is like saying Monty Python makes too many jokes.

Not really. When EVERY shot uses bluescreen it gets a bit much. Im not just talking about wide landscape shots of alien worls, im talking about nearly every scene in the movie that used CGI even when it wasnt needed. I mean whats wrong with building a set instead of just using a bluescreen in every shot. Lazy film making if you ask me.

by **TheStarScreamer** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:40 pm

Well specifically for Lucas, CGI and bluescreen animation was much faster, easier, and cheaper than set construction. Also takes less manpower. CGI was just more economic for Lucas, being that he owns the studios who invented the technology pretty much.