The Energon Pub

I think Transformers was a great blend of both real and special effects and I'm in agreement with Sonray that old filmmaking methods in sci-fi/fantasy are still very useful.

For example: In AVP2, they'll be bringing back the Predator/Alien suits and will be depending less on CGI. Then again, it depends on your budget and how feasible things are.

Satomiblood wrote:I think Transformers was a great blend of both real and special effects and I'm in agreement with Sonray that old filmmaking methods in sci-fi/fantasy are still very useful.

For example: In AVP2, they'll be bringing back the Predator/Alien suits and will be depending less on CGI. Then again, it depends on your budget and how feasible things are.

What i admired about Transformers was the fact that not everything relied on CGI. The action scenes often used REAL stunts and action rather than just doing everything with a computer. My philosophy on film making is do everything for real as much as possible, and only use CGI to create shots that are either just impossible to do for real, or to only ENHANCE the real footage that has been shot.

Another reason why the action scenes in films like Batman Begins and Pirates of the Caribbean and Die Hard 4 were so much fun to watch because stuff always looks better when its done for real and or only enhanced with visual effects, and i think an audience especially these days can tell what is computer generated and thus they will appreciate real stunts and effects more than just a 2 and a half hour long bore fest that looks like a PS2 game. (aka The Star Wars prequels)

Sonray wrote: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.

Ever seen Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? It's all done with CGI Backdrops and it looks fantastic. I don't think it's about lazy film making. I has more to do with offering a different style of film to an increasingly demanding general audience. I do. however, agree that the SW films are a bit too S/FX dependant these days.

The only part I was dissappointed with in the whole movie was when they used the plastic model for Bumblebee-- I could tell it out because it didn't have the metal sheen of the robot or the car. The animation was beyond anything mankind has yet seen.

~Windcharger~ wrote:

Sonray wrote: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.

Ever seen Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? It's all done with CGI Backdrops and it looks fantastic. I don't think it's about lazy film making. I has more to do with offering a different style of film to an increasingly demanding general audience. I do. however, agree that the SW films are a bit too S/FX dependant these days.

Yes i did see that film, and i quite enjoyed it. Same goes for Sin City, and 300. They use the same techniques but to good effect, they enhance the look of the film and make it more stylized, just like using a black and white camera gives your film a certain type of style and look to it. Star Wars however just used CGI because its there, 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. Besides i never liked star wars anyway.

The effects were shoddy? You're crazy! The effects were amazing!

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

Wow ... that's just ... wow.

I'm guessing you don't relate to a lot of people then?

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.

Uh-oh...

I don't like Star Wars...

So we can't be friends? And there's something wrong with me?

You, my friend, are strange.

*hugs ZeroZero* There there, I like Star Wars but I won't condemn you for not liking it.

This turned weird.

I love star wars or at least most of them, phantom menace sucked, jar jar binks needed to be spaced out the first airlock along with the ewoks but I really can't see a star wars comparison to transformers for the most part as this took place primarily on earth.
There was certainly no need to creat cgi environments of cities, locations,people, etc that we all ready know of, that would only apply to locations like the scene on cybertron which I will agree was a little bland and mono form like to use such a phrase even for a war torn world, a little more detail would have been nice.
The bots themselves were awesome and with a bigger budget for TF2 hopefully they will have more screen time and an even better story.

Burn wrote:Wow ... that's just ... wow.

I'm guessing you don't relate to a lot of people then?

I'm enjoying this banter, but really, shouldn't we move on to a new topic? There must be something more interesting to do then poke fun at each other. Of course that's fun too.

p.s. I'm very sarcastic. I like to write an opinion that might give me some reaction, stir the pot a little bit.

I'm with you.


The camera didn't linger on them nearly long enough. Even the IMAX version was too lacking in detail. If I worked at ILM, and who knows maybe I will, I'd be pissed.


The shots of them turning into cars particularly look wrong. You can tell they're squeezing more mass in there than they should be able to.

But I will say that Bonescrusher's transformation on the freeway was bad ass, but that's probably because the angles were really unconventional so it was more interesting that way.

From a modeling standpoint, the TF's were beyond amazing. But they were too "animated" looking. King Kong looked so good because WETA is all about subtlety. Too bad Peter Jackson isn't.

I'd much rather work for WETA than ILM, even though I live only an hour from their studio and WETA's in another hemisphere.

Transformations too short? I suggest watching Prime's 1st full transformation again. It took FOREVER, which was perfectly placed ... he wasn't in battle.

When Barricade was chasing BB, Sam and Mikaela ... of friggin course that one's going to be fast.

As for the effects being shoddy ... are you related to the cop that was questioning Sam at the police station?

If not, did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a child?

There was an unbelievably GREAT amount of screen time for the bots IMHO. Go and watch Spiderman 1, not enough action there if you ask me. Spiderman 3, If Venom(or Topher) weren't in the movie ... I would've totally thought it was a pointless installment to the series. With that said, Venom had about as much screen time as Starscream did in TF.

Also, Superman Returns ... as much as I loved it, could've been more/longer supes footage.

TF was downright perfect if you ask me. They did a fantastic job with everything. Sure, SS didn't have enough screen time ... he will surely be a main character in the next movie.

If questions like this are what is keeping this forum section alive, it should probably be closed soon.

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.

Not really, different people have different tastes. I guess you dont relate to shedloads of people then? How ignorant can a person be to say such a thing? Wow...

AlienQuiksilver wrote:Transformations too short? I suggest watching Prime's 1st full transformation again. It took FOREVER, which was perfectly placed ... he wasn't in battle.

When Barricade was chasing BB, Sam and Mikaela ... of friggin course that one's going to be fast.

As for the effects being shoddy ... are you related to the cop that was questioning Sam at the police station?

If not, did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a child?

There was an unbelievably GREAT amount of screen time for the bots IMHO. Go and watch Spiderman 1, not enough action there if you ask me. Spiderman 3, If Venom(or Topher) weren't in the movie ... I would've totally thought it was a pointless installment to the series. With that said, Venom had about as much screen time as Starscream did in TF.

Also, Superman Returns ... as much as I loved it, could've been more/longer supes footage.

TF was downright perfect if you ask me. They did a fantastic job with everything. Sure, SS didn't have enough screen time ... he will surely be a main character in the next movie.

If questions like this are what is keeping this forum section alive, it should probably be closed soon.

I agree with you. To me the effects are some of the best i have seen since the first Matrix film.

Anyone who says the bots werent detailed enough obviously needs glasses. There was so much detail that im still picking out new details on my 5th viewing of the movie.

The scene where Bumblebee transforms to fight Barricade, you can see the grooves in the metal of his feet (I guess just above his 'heels'). How much more detail do you need/want?

That movie threw down the gauntlet for SFX for the year.

Dark Zarak wrote:I'm with you.


The camera didn't linger on them nearly long enough. Even the IMAX version was too lacking in detail. If I worked at ILM, and who knows maybe I will, I'd be pissed.


The shots of them turning into cars particularly look wrong. You can tell they're squeezing more mass in there than they should be able to.

But I will say that Bonescrusher's transformation on the freeway was bad ass, but that's probably because the angles were really unconventional so it was more interesting that way.

From a modeling standpoint, the TF's were beyond amazing. But they were too "animated" looking. King Kong looked so good because WETA is all about subtlety. Too bad Peter Jackson isn't.

I'd much rather work for WETA than ILM, even though I live only an hour from their studio and WETA's in another hemisphere.

WETA is doing some really crazy cool stuff. I love ILM too but WETA may just beat ILM's effects for long to come. I love that they are doing somewhat different things though. Makes for a more interesting movie experience when you can compare the two companies work. Thats good for us too, it means they have to keep coming up with better technology to please our visual tastes. Don't we deserve it when we see the movie 5 times in the theater, buy the DVDs, HDVDs, and action figures? They made their money, I want a better more believable Transformers 2. Is that too much to ask?

Groundswell wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:I'm with you.


The camera didn't linger on them nearly long enough. Even the IMAX version was too lacking in detail. If I worked at ILM, and who knows maybe I will, I'd be pissed.


The shots of them turning into cars particularly look wrong. You can tell they're squeezing more mass in there than they should be able to.

But I will say that Bonescrusher's transformation on the freeway was bad ass, but that's probably because the angles were really unconventional so it was more interesting that way.

From a modeling standpoint, the TF's were beyond amazing. But they were too "animated" looking. King Kong looked so good because WETA is all about subtlety. Too bad Peter Jackson isn't.

I'd much rather work for WETA than ILM, even though I live only an hour from their studio and WETA's in another hemisphere.

WETA is doing some really crazy cool stuff. I love ILM too but WETA may just beat ILM's effects for long to come. I love that they are doing somewhat different things though. Makes for a more interesting movie experience when you can compare the two companies work. Thats good for us too, it means they have to keep coming up with better technology to please our visual tastes. Don't we deserve it when we see the movie 5 times in the theater, buy the DVDs, HDVDs, and action figures? They made their money, I want a better more believable Transformers 2. Is that too much to ask?

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.

I think the effects in ROS werent that impressive.
probably cause it was sticking real people in a fake world instead of the other way around.
My main gripe was some times things were way too big or small.
in the scene where Sam is running with the allspark Blackout transforms in front of him and looks average sized when in real life he should be a gigantic helicopter.
or when Starscream is fighting Ironhide and Ratchet, he is just as tall them. Maybe he is the right size but I scale them by how big their windows are.
Or how Optimus's feet are the size of cars or can hold two people in his hands.

Also they moved alot and made their faces blurry.
I couldnt tell if their lips were moving and matching the dialogue.

But they were able to have the bots transform fit in with the world, someone could drive a car and suddenly make it transform and you couldnt tell when someone was still driving and when it was replaced by CG.

so what they need to work on is making sure the bots are the right size or put mass-shifting in there.
and have the camera stay steady when they talk, I like shaky camera during action scenes put when they talk...

Jazzz wrote:so what they need to work on is making sure the bots are the right size or put mass-shifting in there.
and have the camera stay steady when they talk, I like shaky camera during action scenes put when they talk...

You wouldnt like to watch any of the Bourne films then...

***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*

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!