Explaining the Special Effects Behind Transformers

ntmokey writes "Popular Mechanics has an in-depth look at the special effects behind the Transformers movie, including some exclusive shots from Paramount Pictures. Apparently, using real cars as models presented some interesting problems for the folks at Industrial Light and Magic, who had to figure out how a recognizable chunk of steel can fold into robot. In the end, the solution was the development team getting hands-on in the auto shop. And lots of grease."

Comments

Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Go see the movie that we talk about.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

The effects will be the only impressive thing about this Michael Bay Cheese-athon.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Actually, I thought that this was the best Bay movie I've ever seen. He still hasn't learned from Pearl Harbor that not every movie needs a love story, but I think that it was still a very good movie.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[reset_button]

I saw the movie on Monday with 16 other friends. Every single person (even the girls who didn't grow up with the cartoon) enjoyed the movie. The only major complaint was that a lot of the action scenes (especially in the beginning) were not comprehensible. The camera would focus too far in and move around a lot, and it was difficult to tell who was fighting and what was going on.

The movie was almost 2.5 hours long, and although some scenes were a bit too long, overall the movie was very enjoyable (I looked at my watch when the movie was over and was very surprised).

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at my watch when the movie was over and was very surprised....because I wasn't wearing one when I went in.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[neonmonk]

I really enjoyed it too. The problem is the nerd vocal minority who whinge and bitch about every little thing.

"OMG ITS NOT LIKE THE OLD CARTOONS THAT I WATCHED WHEN I WAS 8 BACK BEFORE INTERNETS AND BEFORE I SPENT ALL MY TIME ONLINE BITCHING ABOUT HOLLYWOOD HAS DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD OMG"

pfft. It's a fun movie. It has cars, robots, boobs, car chase & explosions. What more could you want.

Get over it.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[electr01nik]

Cheese-a-thon or not, the man had some cool toys to work with on this movie. I happened to catch the HBO First Look on the movie last night, and he's got three really neat camera rigs.

One was a souped up go-cart that goes like 100-mph. Mount a robotic camera on the back with tight shock absorbers. They used it for chases and the vibrations give a really 'tense' feel they said.

Another was a car with a roll-cage on the front, with an expanded grill, and a reinforced camera on the inside. So when they're driving doing the highway tossing cars off the back of a truck, the cameraman said he'd run right into them, and just keep on going.

The last in my opinion was the coolest. I forget what model car they used (newer model car I think), 6 people on the inside to control the camera, and a robotic camera mounted on the roof with a 360-degree axis.

Found it! Start it at 3:30

Even though I don't like many of his movies, I still like the toys he gets to use when he makes them.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[suv4x4]

He still hasn't learned from Pearl Harbor that not every movie needs a love story, but I think that it was still a very good movie.

Yea, you can't blame the guy: he had just something like around $200 million to make this movie. With such a scarce budget, last thing you wanna do is think about whether there should be a love story in it or not. Love stories are cheap and don't involve CGI, so that's good to thrown in, just in case.

I'm sure if they keep giving him movies, few billion later he'll eventually learn. I can't wait to see the kind of movie Bay would do on a budget of 500 million. He may even hire screenwriters.

---

Regarding special effects: what's with Hollywood complaining about how complex it was for them to pull off the effects? I mean, guys: you cast it upon yourselves.

Is transformers complex to do in CGI? I mean, look at them - they're just a bunch of colored boxes. But that's not good enough for ya, right? Naaah!

They have to actually take the original designs, and make them look as if someone mounted a bomb in them, and it exploded right before the movie shooting began.

With so many parts randomly sticking out, a real-world robot like this would constantly find himself hitching all sorts of garbage laying around that gets stuck in most inconvenient places.

Also it wouldn't hurt they they consider how fast a huge metal robot could move and transform, so to look real (yea, it's about of robots turning cars from outer space, but in a live movie, it HAS to look realistic).

I don't blame the CGI crew for this last one though. Apparently they pitches realistic physics to Bay, but he was convinced that huge metal robots from outer space would move fast and smooth like "ninjas". Yea, like ninjas.

The result is you get a mix of realistic physics (on impact with buildings) and the rest of the time, the Transformers look like paper models that could get carried away if you blow a household fan at them.

Great job.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Yvan256]

The only major complaint was that a lot of the action scenes (especially in the beginning) were not comprehensible. The camera would focus too far in and move around a lot, and it was difficult to tell who was fighting and what was going on.

That's a major problem in a lot of recent movies. It's like some idiot in Hollywood is teaching that "if 95% of the screen moves, people will think it is more actionny."

And yes I made up the word actionny. We're talking about Hollywood here.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[suv4x4]

That's a major problem in a lot of recent movies. It's like some idiot in Hollywood is teaching that "if 95% of the screen moves, people will think it is more actionny."

The camera is only a part of the problem. I can't figure out why movie robots always need to have so many spinning and twirling parts. these guys alway had some 10-20 appendages twirling about when they transform or try to cause impact upon something.

Maybe it's somewhere in the backstory that they evolved from household blender robots but I've missed this one.

One would think that to be successful fighting to save (or destroy) the universe against an army of huge robots, you'd try to be as efficient and fast as possible, so you'd cut the twirling and dancing part to a minimum and get to business.

But maybe it's some sort of ritual, as with some animals, where they avoid causing unnecessary damage by just threatening the opponent with how fast they can spin their weapons around, in the hope he gives up.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Yvan256]

I was talking about "action shots" in general, nothing specific about this movie. Sometimes the action shots are so close that all we can see is a huge full-screen blur.

Then there's the camera shot length. If you keep switching the point of view around, make it last at least 3 or 4 seconds so we actually know what we're looking at, and from where.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Killjoy_NL]

It had BOOBS?!?! in the US theaters???
Whoa :D

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[neonmonk]

Well ok they, weren't BARE, but there was certain hintage/cleavage of boobs!

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Killjoy_NL]

Let's hope they will be bare in the euro version (they probably won't be though *sniff)

Dutchy here ;)

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Kjella]

That's a major problem in a lot of recent movies. It's like some idiot in Hollywood is teaching that "if 95% of the screen moves, people will think it is more actionny."

Agreed. There's basicly two forms of shooting:
1) The "in persona" shooting
2) The "godlike" shooting

The first is great for movies where you're trying to sell someone's story. Doesn't mean you can't overview shots, but that's really more like setting up the scene. E.g. "Saving private Ryan". Here it's perfectly acceptable to be handheld and shaky, lose focus and jump trying to find what to film.

The second is when you're like setting up the shots, with cameras convieniently placed at optimum angles all the time. You can go down the battlefield, but you're still an observer optimally placed. Example: Witch-King battle in LotR.

Then there's the Hollywood version - you're not anyone in particular, but you move and flash around like some crazy guy in "Deja vu" trying to capture a shot before you miss it. What the hell is the point? You're not trying to present one individual's confused view. You're just showing a lot of garbage, that's all.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Opportunist]

What more could you want.

Umm... a plot? Ya know, back when I was young, movies used to have them. It's kinda like the cheap filler scenes you have today between the action parts, but they made sense and actually fit into the movie.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[mbulge]

The spastic camera movements can sometimes just be attributed to mood-setting or directorial style, but I think here they have a more practical use. Every time the camera loses focus on the main action it means several less hours and millions of dollars that need to be spent on CG. At some point it just isn't practical to let an entire fight play out on screen, not when the audience is willing to accept cuts and inattentiveness to the actual action. The movie came in at over two hours, so I can already imagine the special effects team were under enough pressure to finish the scenes that did make it into the movie.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Jace of Fuse!]

I simply hate that Bumblebee is a freakin' Camaro simply because this is a GM Sponsored movie.

Not that I don't love Camaros or anything, but would it have been so hard for them simply to use another character, such as Hot Rod (who also wasn't a Camaro, but at least he was a sports car), so they can whore themselves out to GM and still stay somewhat close to what we all know and loved about the original?

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular Mechanics lost all credibility after they published that atrocious 9/11 article, edited by Michael Chertoff's cousin no less, that claimed (like it was realistic) that the plane that hit the Pentagon moved more like a liquid than a solid and that's why the damage on the building was inconsistent with a plane strike.

These guys are just out to make a buck. They should change the name of their magazine to "Advertising Mechanics." They don't care who the money comes from, they'll take it from anyone. Even the bush crime family of traitors!

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Volkswagen wouldn't allow it. They don't want to be associated with war. Given the origins of the original Beetle, can you really blame them?

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"pfft. It's a fun movie. It has cars, robots, boobs, car chase & explosions. What more could you want."

Humor? Ahah that's okay, it had that, too. As a matter of fct, that's why my girlfriend liked the movie. (Color me surprised, she won't typically go to scifi movies.)

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[tylernt]

Sometimes the action shots are so close that all we can see is a huge full-screen blur.
Then there's the camera shot length.

I'm convinced this is one of the reasons the Matrix did so well -- you could actually see and understand what the heck was going on. There aren't a lot of modern movies you can say that about.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Trogre]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that up to the writers, not the director?

In this case, that would be John Rogers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

It would be interesting to get a hold of the screenplay and see what if anything was changed.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[mabhatter654]

cost cutting!

Doing close up shots saved the CGI budget for just a few of the really expensive ones. There's a finite amount of money available, so they used the cover of "gritty" to cover the budget. There's nothing wrong with it, the way it was done looks more like a news camera trying to follow (like how in Battlestar ships bob in and out of frame all the time) In reality of war/news footage the "money shot" you don't always get.. they played the same games here. It wasn't bad, they pulled it off, but I'd be certain it was a director/style fix to a budget problem.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[fractoid]

Yes, yes you can. It'd be like making a rerun of Herbie the Love Bug, and casting a Ford F150 as Herbie.

Speaking of whom, the version I heard was that they didn't want American viewers to confuse Bumblebee with said Herbie. For heavens' sake, what's next, cars with fans under the dash to blow air in your face, gas jets to make them look like rockets, and big hidden speakers to make a 'whoosh' noise? (Cmon someone has to have read that story... :P )

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[fractoid]

That's a major problem in a lot of recent movies. It's like some idiot in Hollywood is teaching that "if 95% of the screen moves, people will think it is more actionny." The worst offender I can think of for this one is Bourne Supremacy. 30 minutes into that film I had my eyes closed because the constant shaky-cam was giving me a headache. Hell, I could give my baby brother a bottle full of red cordial and video camera and he'd shoot a steadier shot.

300, on the other hand, did their action scenes perfectly. The high-speed action interspersed with slow-motion scenes let you see what was actually going on, and at the same time gave a tremendous feeling of the pace of the battle. I really hope more directors take that style up, because it worked awesomely.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[zfalcon]

It doesn't save much money to do close up shots. Each frame still gets animated and rendered with the same models. It's really the director deciding how the action proceeds.

That's one of my biggest annoyances with action movies. Many directors like the close up fighting sequences for some reason. The second Bourne movie in particular doing this (along with the purposeful shaky-cam) made the fighting suck.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[cyclomedia]

My thoughts exactly, indeed IMO the best fight scene out of all 3 is the sparring scene between Neo and Morpheus - technically not a "fight" at all. And why? because of the long tracking shots and wide angle still shots. You can actually SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING.

A good comparison is Bourne Identity VS Bourne Supremacy, in the former he finds a guy in his apartment, swiftly breaks the guys arm and kicks the shit out of him. It's a great scene and despite being relatively short is quite well put together. In the latter Bourne finds another guy in another house and they fight, for ages, with rolled up magazines, but sod all fighting actually happens, and you can't actually see anything not just because the camera is shaking but because of the fact that it's zoomed right in and it's going cut, cut, cut, cut. Sure it's more "actionny" but it just doesnt WORK.

Same thing for both films' car chases, (though i think B.I.s is overrated by people who clearly haven't seen Ronin, and the music choice didnt help either). In B.I. at least you can see what's going on, in B.S. it's all zoomy, cutty, shaky == confusing. Only the side-impact moment really makes it worthwhile.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it hurts having your precious conspiracy theories blown apart by hard realty, but you need to deal with it and get a life.

If you can't, suicide. It's that simple.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[EmperorKagato]

I hope you're not referring to the 80s. Most of the 80s movies had a recycled plot.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a Herbie the Lovebug toy that would require the style of the car be licensed in order to make a proper toy!? The Transformers Alternators line and the movie toys are accurate because they are licensed products. And while Americans are pretty damn dumb and might actually confuse Herbie with Bumble Bee (or Goldbug, or his Pretender form, what's that Bumblebee wasn't always a yellow VW beetle!?), the GP claim is accurate. VW wouldn't sign off on the licensing.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[dawnzer]

WHAT?!? BUMBLEBEE WAS MY FAVORITE! NOooooOOooOoOOO!!!

Damn. I knew I shouldn't have started reading this before I see the movie. My husband (who is 37 and didn't really watch Transformers) is already giving me a hard time about wanting to go see it. He just rolls his eyes when he sees me glued to the previews.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Opportunist]

But at least they HAD one! Hell, I'd already be happy if movies today DID recycle plots.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

To take it one step further, the Bubblebee toy in the Transformers: Classics line, which is supposed to invoke the original G1 toys, has a non-VW bug Bumblebee because of the VW issue.

Re:Guerrilla marketing

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Read up on Mr. Bay. He is presented with something and changes it to be more "explodey."

That is his gift and his curse.

Now, if only...

[brian0918]

They could explain how that movie could be any shittier. What a let down. On the same level as AVP. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for it. What the hell was with them spending so much time on random crap; 20 minutes devoted to finding the glasses in the house; another 30 minutes devoted to bringing this expert hacker into the picture, as well as the unnecessary Sector 7 with that dumbass leader (although he's good in other movies). All that time could've been spent on actually having some sort of mission and goals, and more kick ass fight sequences (almost all the action shots are already in the trailers).

It's like the director had a general idea of where they were going to shoot a scene, and who would be in the scene, but they didn't have anything for the characters to do or say. "Go that way! Go up to the top of that building and give the cube to the military! Who the fuck knows why, it's just something to do!" No motivation for anything that was done or said.

The autobots only get one line of character development each, and I still thought they were more developed than any of the other people in the movie.

Even the action scenes were crap; not even an attempt to do the usual "good guy starts out ahead, bad get gets upper hand, then good guy comes back finally to win". Just random punches spliced between clips of Shia LaBeouf running away.

Re:Now, if only...

[morari]

What did you expect, Michael Bay directed it? I won't even bother watching it, I typically don't pay any attention to mainstream films these days anyway. However, from the trailer it seemed that if nothing else the new Transformer designs were way too complicated looking and seriously lacking the practicality of before. I wonder what other piece of childhood nostalgia they'll ruin before the year's over? They already damned the Ninja Turtles and Transformers within the past several months; both of which already have far superior films from almost twenty years ago.

Re:Now, if only...

[WFFS]

Sure it isn't traditional Transformers, but it is definitely an visual spectacular. You have to remember, they had to write a movie for people that had never heard of Transformers, and somehow make it plausible to today's critical 12 year old. This might be a bit of a letdown for the generation that grew up on Transformers, but you have to remember, that generation is between 22 and 32 now. Anyone younger just won't get it. And so I think they did a great job, even for this guy who still has his old Starscream toy.

Ok, you didn't like it. There are a lot more who did.

Re:Now, if only...

[eli pabst]

I disagree. Half the people who didn't like it complain that there was too much time spent on plot development and the other half complain there wasn't enough. It had a half-way decent plot that was carried by some really kick ass action sequences and some truly humorous moments (like the "20 minutes devoted to finding the glasses in the house", the bulk of which was actually the autobots amusingly trying to hide in the backyard). Seriously, it's the Transformers, what did you expect Dostoevsky?

Re:Now, if only...

[spazLizard]

morari asks: "I wonder what other piece of childhood nostalgia they'll ruin before the year's over?"
Hate to break it ya: http://www.insomniacmania.com/news_default.php?id= 3743

Re:Now, if only...

[morari]

I can't say that one effects me, but certainly an interesting note regardless. I was never much into the blatant glamorizing of the military and patriotism :P

Re:Now, if only...

[tlhIngan]

Sure it isn't traditional Transformers, but it is definitely an visual spectacular. You have to remember, they had to write a movie for people that had never heard of Transformers, and somehow make it plausible to today's critical 12 year old. This might be a bit of a letdown for the generation that grew up on Transformers, but you have to remember, that generation is between 22 and 32 now. Anyone younger just won't get it. And so I think they did a great job, even for this guy who still has his old Starscream toy.

I dunno. It appears they directed the film at us (the 22-32 generation as you called it)... brought back a lot of memories I have to say. And you gotta admit, the merchanidising was designed for us. I mean, the Optimus Prime voice changer helmet? The fact that size goes up to Adult (for all but the largest of heads, it seems) isn't an accident. Or the fact that the OP blaster fits fairly large arms as well. (Heck, just see GooTube for all the reviews of both, notably, all done by adults).

I haven't seen the movie yet (or actually gone to a movie theatre in 10 years), but I do plan on seeing this one. And from all the reviews I've read, it's either great, or crappy (for the usual reasons). None of the crappy reviews I've seen actually said "it makes a mockery of those who grew up with Transformers" but more along the lines of "yawn, another Hollywood SFX deal". So I'm guessing my childhood memories of Transformers are pretty safe.

Hell, I finally got an Optimus Prime transformer that I never had growing up (20th Anniversary Movie Optimus Prime - pricey), after 20-plus years.

Re:Now, if only...

[SCHecklerX]

I disagree. The only thing additional that I would like to see is more time spent on developing the decepticon characters (like the distrust and rivalry between Megatron and Starscream). The comedy was great, especially bumblebee helping sam with the girl, and of course the stumbling around in the back yard, and the transformation from the old camaro to the new. I did feel at times like I was watching the 80's cartoon, which is exactly as it should be!

Did anybody else notice the little dig on volkswagon at the beginning? Loved that since from what I read, they were approached and declined allowing the bug to be used for bumblebee?

Re:Now, if only...

[Stinking Pig]

Wait a minute though, the movie was targeted at the 22-32 generation. Go take a look at the IMDB reviews and watch the trailers. For fun, watch the trailers for Starship Troopers and Robocop at the same time. I can't find the link now, but I read about 6 weeks ago that it initially had an R, until strings were pulled to get it back to PG-13.

All of which means that my 9 year old son and his friends aren't going to go see it, which is a shame because they're bigger fans than I ever was. I guess we'll just rent the 1985 movie again.

Re:Now, if only...

[Machtyn]

And the parents thinking the boy was, ... umm, jerking off. And then when the hot chick pokes her head up fully clothed by today's standards, he was farking off. (The parents' response was completely wrong!)

Anyway, I thought the movie was great. They poke fun at GWB, but at the same time spout "The American Way" of the right to freedom for all (which is what the USA is fighting for right now for another oppressed people.) They also poke fun at, and show the ridiculousness of some of today's ways of doing things, (Internet/WWW, eBay, getting some Indian on a phone who won't understand the seriousness of a situation... except this Indian had better english, etc.)

It was great to hear all of the tag-lines that were in the original cartoons.

Starscream, you have failed me yet again!
There's more to us than meets the eye.
Autobots, transform and rollout!

Okay, those aren't exact, and there are others throughout, it was fun.

The battle scenes were incredible, especially the end when the bots were going at it. It's the kind of thing I wish I could create and script out. Granted, there were times the camera came in too close and my bro complained about the shakiness. I wonder if ILM is trying to keep it cheaper... that is, not spend so much time in rendering so many things in a frame. They did the same thing in Pirates 3. Though, the effects are pretty cool.

The surround sound was finally correct for any movie I've seen. Sounds that I expected to be behind me, on the right, left, back a bit and to the left, etc, where were I heard them.

Finally, what about the preview for the new J.J. Abrams top secret movie Cloverfield? That looks like it's going to be pretty dang cool. (I love the proper use of silence)

Re:Now, if only...

[goatpunch]

it is definitely an visual spectacular

Yes, it was spectacular watching that camera shake around. Seems like ILM have nailed their motion blurring algorithms so well that I didn't have a clue what was happening for most of the main battle sequences.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually his nickname is brian0918 not Dostoevsky.

Re:Now, if only...

[Ucklak]

I was extremely dissappointed in the film. But it's a must see disappointment. The spectacle is worth it alone.

When you see scenes like this during a moment that was far from funny, I wondered where they were taking this movie. That scene includes (in the movie) a fantastic long shot of a gunship firing and circling on the robot, but to mix it with camp comedy is a tragic mistake for American cinema.

The portrayal of a top secret government agency as keystone cops and a FBI raid that might as well have included the 3 Stooges and some Offenbach's Orpheus in the Underworld music just to top it off was well out of place. The film goes past campy then immediately is supposed to draw you back into the seriousness of the moment.

I'm not a Bay hater. I like his style, he has an energy to his shots and his films show the budget on screen. Having said that, Pearl Harbor sucked. What had the potential and formula to be a great film (love triangles classically have been the best stories. Look at any Opera) ended up being a crappy chick flick with bombs.

I realized why this movie had the final cut it has and why the producers would let this 144 minute movie that should have been trimmed by 30 minutes get a global release; the international markets.

Show US goverment agencies as idiots, American computer hackers fit the stereotype that they do nothing but play videogames and live at home with their mother, the pee jokes will go over well in Japan, there is an Austrailian that is smarter than the US Department of Defense, and the action scenes should please everyone.

Michael Bay made a movie with a little something for everyone; I just which that the US cut was 30 minutes shorter. You could really rename this movie "A Boy and his Car", cut the movie to reflect it as there is plenty of footage and it would be a pretty good movie.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thought it was very stereotypical that only the "black" transformer Jazz died? I mean seriously. Bumblebee gets half frozen, then gets his legs torn off, then gets dragged around by a tow truck and he can still destroy a decepticon. Jazz gets torn in half and he's done!

Not that I really care, it just seemed SO obvious. Lets try to be more subtle with our racial action movie stereotypes kthx.

Re:Now, if only...

[Lisandro]

I wonder what other piece of childhood nostalgia they'll ruin before the year's over?

I think the guys at Penny Arcade have an idea or two...

Re:Now, if only...

[goatpunch]

Why are there so few people like yourself voting and commenting on the IMDB? Right now it's at User Rating: 8.3/10 (6,424 votes). The votes, User Comments, and Message Board posts there are overwhelmingly positive.

The movie leaves me with quite a few other questions too:

Why did we have to spend 20 minutes watching robots tiptoe around the garden breaking flowerpots to set up a lame joke about the kid wanking (although his mum's reaction when the girl appeared was the best moment in the film)? That scene edited down to about a minute.

Why did they decide to go to the nearest population center with the magic cubey thing, when that will cause the greatest possible number of casualties?

Why did the army guy suddenly turn around and back the kid ("get him to his car"), when to our knowledge they'd never met and he had no idea what his car was?

Why did it turn into the heartwarming story of one boy and his pet alien robot, in the best tradition of ET, Flight of the Navigator, and Short Circuit?

With all that money, do you think they could have paid someone with some knowledge of scriptwriting to glance over the script?

Why would anyone think that getting the cube into a chopper would keep it from the alien robots, who can outfly and outgun all human aircraft?

Why the need for all the racial stereotypes?

How does a kid manage to climb up 10 stories of stairs faster than a robot who can literally fly through buildings?

Re:Now, if only...

[misleb]

What would you expect from Michael Bay... for whom the film "Armageddon" is something to be proud of?

Re:Now, if only...

[misleb]

Oh yeah, that'll be a thrill. A live action movie where laser blasts are flying everywhere and yet somehow NOBODY EVER GETS HIT! Exciting.

-matthew

Re:Now, if only...

[misleb]

Sure it isn't traditional Transformers, but it is definitely an visual spectacular. You have to remember, they had to write a movie for people that had never heard of Transformers, and somehow make it plausible to today's critical 12 year old.

Since when is "plausible" much of an issue for kids? Even today? Hell, ESPECIALLY today. The CG effects in movies today are ANYTHING but plausible. I can barely even watch them sometimes because they're just so over-the-top stupid.

The original Transformers was never very believable in the first place. Do you remember the original Transformers? Remember the scenes where Optimus Prime transforms from truck to robot and his trailer just mysteriously disappears? Or how Megatron magically shrinks to 1/10th of his original size as he morphs into a gun?

-matthew

Re:Now, if only...

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Between 22-32? Try 22-40. At last, a cultural icon that spans nearly 20 years. :-)

sri

Re:Now, if only...

[despisethesun]

You forgot one: Michael Bay said he didn't want Megatron to turn into a gun because "it didn't make sense" that a giant robot could shrink down to that size, or something to that effect. But we had to put up with that cube bullshit, where a gigantic cube as big as the Hoover Dam shrinks down to the size of a football? As soon as that happened, I let out an audible "fuck off". This movie was dog shit, the 1986 movie had better dialogue, a better plot, and better acting. I watched it when I got home just to make sure I wasn't looking at it through rose coloured glasses. If they had redone that movie with the new one's action scenes, this could have kicked serious ass. Instead we got Armageddon with robots taking the place of the meteor.

Oh, and if you thought that script was shit, I've got some bad news for you. The writers are apparently working on the next Star Trek movie. So now Trekkies can have their fond memories assraped, too.

Re:Now, if only...

[Machtyn]

Yes, I would agree with all of that. A dozen cops standing around a plan... looking at the plan, and they don't hear a metallic robot klinking right behind them? Insipid.

Anyway, I guess I remembered the action more than the comedic inappropriateness during some of the battles. Very Jar-Jar like.

Re:Now, if only...

[Richard_at_work]

When you see scenes like this during a moment that was far from funny, I wondered where they were taking this movie. That scene includes (in the movie) a fantastic long shot of a gunship firing and circling on the robot, but to mix it with camp comedy is a tragic mistake for American cinema.

I get the impression that that scene is actually not meant to be as comedy value as it would seem - that actually happened during the US Invasion of Grenada in 1984 - ground forces were pinned down in the Governor-Generals mansion on the island, unable to contact the fire support aircraft overhead nor other units to request support. In the end, one of the soldiers placed a credit card call to Fort Bragg in the US in order to request a fire support mission and he got the same run around by the operator.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

(which is what the USA is fighting for right now for another oppressed people.)

As an Iraqi I kindly ask the USA to STOP fighting for that right for us, thank you. You are not helping. The USA is not even doing a decent job of fixing the damage it caused in the first place by backing Saddam and thinking the Iran-Iraq war was a good idea.

Re:Now, if only...

[brian0918]

My favorite question is, if the autobots learned english through the internet, how did Megatron learn english?

Re:Now, if only...

[schnibitz]

Meh, typical holy-er than thou comments. Haven't y'all figured out that the only movies you'll like will be from Hitchcock, or Kirasau (or however it's spelled)? Perhaps you should just stick to watching that stuff, and leave the rest of us to enjoy life. Seriously people it's a summer blockbuster. What'd you think it would be some oscar calibre film? Anyway, here's some observations: I thought that the dialogue was really cheesy, but it was well masked by humor. Some scenes were seriously hillarious, but others were funny enough to offset the akwardness of delivering lines about decepticons, autobots, and some struggle for the All Spark. It wasn't great, but it could have been FAR worse. I thought that most moments between the boy and the girl were too mushy, but they handled that again by introducing humor. And for cripes sake, thank you for not allowing them to engage in some kiss during the heat of the battle in the city scene. I wouldn't have put it in at all personally, but it worked best at the very end. I thought that the acting could have been better in some places, but for the most part it did it's job. The whole 20 minute scene with them looking for the glasses could have been clipped a bit, but they had to keep the mom's reaction in there. To keep that there, they needed to provide at least some time for the boy to dig himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The crowd errupted in that scene, and it had to stay. Bay/Spielberg honored the older fans by paying hamage to the old movie and series. While much has changed, the look and feel remains much the same. And to see Barricade running then instantly transform down into the car was unbelieveable. The problem I see with this movie is that it isn't very re-watchable. I saw it twice, and loved it more the first time than the second. That's my only gripe though . . . I was expecting at most that I'd see a ton of robot action. I wasn't expecting them to do anything to hide any flaws. I wasn't expecting them to offer nods to the older fans, and I wasn't expecting any character development. Although I didn't get oscar calibre versions of the stuff above, I walked away with MUCH more than I thought I would. The visuals themselves (and I'm not talking about only Fox either) were unbelieveable.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't learn English. He is speaking Sindarin, it is just translated to English for your benefit.

Re:Now, if only...

[goatpunch]

He didn't learn English. He is speaking Sindarin, it is just translated to English for your benefit.

So who translated it for our plucky hero?

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Our plucky hero is a major Lord of the Rings nerd?

Re:Now, if only...

[despisethesun]

Let's get this out of the way to begin with: You're an idiot. That you started off your comment by assuming people who dislike this pile of shit are film snobs outs you as such. I'm a long time Transformers fan who has no problem with a big-budget action flick provided it's not treating me like an idiot while I watch it. My "suspension of disbelief" covers insane stunts, not a shitty script.

Now that that's out of the way, the dialogue wasn't masked by the humour, because the humour was shit. It was bottom of the barrel and full of the worst cliches. The Autobots in the backyard? LOL THERE CLUMSY GIENTS!!! The masturbation joke? COMEDY GOLD!!!11 The love story was also full of all the worst cliches. The government's reaction? Cliche. They even had "the world's greatest hacker", who was a fat loser who lived with his grandmother playing video games all day, and his "hacking" consisted of similar effects to the original computer shitfest, Hackers. Anything that wasn't robot combat was shit. In fact, if they would have edited out all the story parts and just turned it into "Michael Bay Presents: Transforming Robot Deathmatch", it would have been worth my money and then some. They could have had Megatron calling the audience dumb rednecks and then Optimus marches out with a 40 foot American flag over his shoulder and kicks Megatron's ass and I would have checked my brain at the door and enjoyed every minute of it. But they didn't. They shat this giant turd out and everyone took a bite and asked for more. For a Transformers fan like myself, I was hoping for the equivalent of Spider-Man or Batman Begins, but instead I got Daredevil or Batman & Robin. And the nods to the older fans were all negligible. They didn't even follow through on the "One shall stand, one shall fall" line.

You're right to point out that this isn't re-watchable, though, and I'm betting more people will see things this way when they pick it up on DVD. The "HOLY SHIT!" feeling only lasts so long, and then you have to put up with the plot, the bad jokes, and the shit acting. And that's when most Transformers fans will break out the 1986 movie and think about how cool it could have been with those new special effects.

The fact that they made Devastator a generic tank instead of the kick ass Constructicon gestalt was enough to make this unforgivable. They should have just brought in Grimlock as a talking dog and finished shitting on my head in one go.

Re:Now, if only...

[schnibitz]

Ah well, I probably deserved that for labeling naysayers as film prudes . . . my bad. All I know is that each time I've seen it, I've stood in line with people worried that their precious transformers childhood would be destroyed by Mr. Bay and Co, so they had a pretty guarded mindset from the beginning. Me too actually to a degree. Not a single one of those people were inspired to utter the same level venom I've seen from you and a few others. In fact everyone I've talked to were pretty impressed, transformer fans or not. I went with someone who doesn't even like movies and even that person liked it. So, since I started it with my naysayers quip, allow me to hypocritically announce: let the insinuations that only "idiots" can like this film begin . . .

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that they made Devastator a generic tank instead of the kick ass Constructicon gestalt was enough to make this unforgivable.

Huh? The Abrams Tank was named Brawl...

Re:Now, if only...

[despisethesun]

Nope. He was supposed to be named Brawl, and that's what he's listed as on the packaging for the toys. In the movie, when all the Decepticons check in on their radios, he checks in as Devastator and it's a huge kick in the teeth.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it this way. I would have loved to have seen Starscream and Megatron in the movie.

I also didn't like the transformers changing what they were - if they can self-rebuild like that, don't you think they'd do that all the freaking time to hide?

Yes, I think EVERYONE noticed the VW Beetle. Same as they also noticed what was hanging off the rear-vision mirror in the Camaro when it was first on-screen..

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a let down. On the same level as AVP. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for it.

WTF?!???

My god... you are the stinkingest piece of slime I think I've ever had the misadventure to hear about. You're a total piece of crap, and indicative of the most ridiculous, arrogant perpetuators of undeserved entitlement of all time.

You didn't pay for it. And yet you assert some right to complain about it.

You, sir, are an asshole.

Re:Now, if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pimsleur language tapes?

Re:Now, if only...

[fan of lem]

I'm in the should-have-been-more-action camp. The plot's definitely crap, so filling it up with action sequences will sort the movie out for the better. I also think the action choreography isn't too good, but if you had tons of them, you'd at least find one or two that will be visually memorable.

I do like the humorous parts, though.

Re:Now, if only...

[nwbvt]

I suspect they had a lot of trouble deciding that. Should they make a campy fun movie for people in their 20s who are nostalgic for the days when they played with the plastic toys? Or should they make a kids movie for people who may be fans of the toy line today? From what I've heard (though I haven't actually seen it), they tried and failed at both. Its rated too high for kids today (ok, I know theaters don't always honor ratings that strictly, but if you target audience is 10 year old kids, you need to make it rated PG), and they took it too seriously (and made too many changes) for those wanting a campy throwback to the 80s. I groaned when I heard they made Megatron turn into a jet instead of a gun because they thought it would be unrealistic if he changed size during his transformation. Come on, its a bunch of transforming robot aliens blowing each other up, whats so hard about that? Once again Michael Bay gets a potentially great project, but blows it because he misses the entire point.

Ah screw it. Hopefully Transformers 2 will get an actually decent director, and I'm crossing my fingers that will cover digging up JetFire (he kicked ass).

Re:Now, if only...

[Achoi77]

I saw the movie, and the only plausible explanation that it would have been rated R is because of the usage of the word 'shit.' A lot of the actors end up saying that a good number of times, including one soldier saying (not verbatim, just off the top of my head)

"Man oh man, if you can see this shit.."

"Shit! Shit! Shit! Shit! Shit! Shit!" - someone being chased by a Decepticon

"Oh..shit" - when one of the transformers dies - mostly for humor effect

There is no nudity, but there are some body shots that emphasize the female figure - which may give have upped the ante for a stronger rating due to sexual content. Possibly.

Some of the violence would would have definately changed the movie rating to R if they were humans instead of robots. For example, there is a beheading, and then there is the scene where Megatron takes Jazz and... kills him - this is where the audience goes "OOOH!" No human blood gore however. Only one human gets impaled, most humans that die are 'behind the curtain' so to speak.. You get the idea.

The movie is indeed kinda campy. Deliberate cliches here and there ("More that meets the eye" and some quotes directly from the original cartoon movie). The 'transformer' sound inserted discreetly (done well, imo), and the oblig. cheesy love story thing going on. It is on the violent side, but imo not any more violent or containing sexual content than WWE Wrestling. So if your kids can stomach WWE, they will probably like this movie. Everybody that I saw it with (who grew up with Transformers) loved it.

Re:Now, if only...

[vuffi_raa]

hahaha I was saying to my GF that someone would try to attempt this while sitting in the theater today waiting for transformers to start

Re:Now, if only...

[Legion303]

I didn't have a problem with the fractal cube making itself smaller. I did have a problem with the apparent mass disappearing to allow the kid to scoop it up and put it in his jacket, though.

"So now Trekkies can have their fond memories assraped, too."

Already happened. I haven't been able to sit on a hard chair since Voyager. But thanks for the concern.

Re:Now, if only...

[WeeLad]

Since the human-built machine shapes that the robots take seem easily changeable in the movie ... [Bumblebee from old camaro to new, Frenzy from boombox to cell phone] ... perhaps some of these wrongs will be righted in the sequel.

Re:Now, if only...

[brian0918]

But Pimsleur doesn't have "English for Cybertron natives" tapes. Are they working for the government too?

Re:Now, if only...

[CrimsonAvenger]

My daughter went to the most recent BotCon. She learned there that the subtitle was just a mistake that noone noticed until it was too late. The script said Brawl, someone turned that into Devastator when adding subtitles...get over it.

Re:Now, if only...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Probably downloaded the language update from Starscream when he went active. I'm assuming he can manage a reasonable bandwidth for communications. If not, he's a pretty crappy super-tech AI computer....

Don't see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw it last night. All action and no plot. The star of the movie is basically this kid that is as close to Wesley Crusher as you can come (it's similar to a limit at a vertical asymptote--if you actually get Wesley Crusher, you get a divide by zero error)--so if you see it, beware!

It's basically chock full of explosions and transformations that make no sense, but at least for what storyline it has, it follows the original line pretty close.

By the way, the story really revolves around a shallow girl that they made just unattractive enough that you would actually want to pay attention to all of the minor details of the movie. It's cool, though!

They should've

[maroberts]

..simply hired the guys who did the Citroen adverts.

Re:They should've

[aadvancedGIR]

How could they justify that enormous film budget if they have used a relatively cheap and fuel efficient car. Moreover, compared to other european brands (and even their partner, Peugeot) and despite good results in WRC, Citroen cars don't are not considered cool or beatiful.

Re:They should've

[arivanov]

There are a few copies of the ads on gootube, though IMO only this one is really cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X7PAdSfHO8&mode=re lated&search=

As far as cool I would disagree with you. The C4 (especially the 3 door one) cool.

Granted, it is probably the first cool looking car Citroen has put out for nearly 20 years. Otherwise the early Citroens used to be "the kings of cool" on European roads. Just ask anyone who is old enough to remember the flying Citroen out of the Phantomas movies and its first descendants. Or the 2CV which is probably the ultimate Bohemi attitude car. More beetle than the real beetle.

Re:They should've

[Saint Fnordius]

The Citröen Xsara Picasso is a pretty cool minivan, and I want a Citröen C1 diesel (very similar to the Toyota Aygo) for my work commute.

The newest iteration of the Renault Twingo, however, isn't as charming as it used to be.

Re:They should've

[aadvancedGIR]

I understand what you say, but I think we were talking about different kind of "cool".

If I wanted a minivan for a movie, I'll pick a Dodge Ram for an action one or a 20 year old orange VW Combi for a comedy, but I'll sure chose something like a Picasso over these two for my everyday life (more confortable and reliable, far safer, far better MPG and a lot of storage space, comes in several colors but everyone chooses grey). BTW, being an average single /.er, my Clio II dCI is large enough for me (The C3 was just too ugly).

Re:They should've

[Kj0n]

This may be slightly off-topic, but you should read this. It is absolutely brilliant.

Explain this!

[kidcharles]

Sure, you can explain the special effects, but can you explain that anguished feeling of betrayal after discovering that Bumblebee is a Chevy Camaro? Can you!? Rest in peace, my childhood...

Re:Explain this!

[JRGhaddar]

Okay well here is what I have heard...

  I too was angry about him not being a VW bug, but it turns out that VW refuses to have there product shown in a movie that has wars or battles. So when the production company approached them they said no. Now I have also heard that GM signed exclusive rights for product placement that shut out other automakers as well. Hopefully someone can clear up who is responsible for "The Bumblebee Bumble".

His name is bumblebee...I mean he has to be a bug

Re:Explain this!

[neonmonk]

Honestly, I'm glad he wasn't a VW. There'd be countless comparisons with Herbie. God how I hate Herbie.

And hey, Camaros are cool.

Re:Explain this!

[NiceGeek]

The VW story is true - Hasbro also can't use the VW Beetle for any Bumblebee toys - which is why the recent "classics" version of BB is a generic Beetle-esque car.

Re:Explain this!

[WFFS]

The betrayal is lessened slightly when you see the car next to Bumblebee in the movie...









(SPOILER: Its a VW Beetle if you haven't seen the movie. A nice nod to the REAL Bumblebee)

Re:Explain this!

[Zonekeeper]

Hence why VW is stupid. No wars or battles eh. I wonder why color the sky is in there lilac world? Damned idiots. When I see a company acting like that, I go out of my way not to patronize them. I prefer companies who are grounded in reality, not grounded as in head in the sand.

Re:Explain this!

[wild_berry]

VW's Bug is indisputably a car designed by Ferdinand Porsche, commissioned by Adolf Hitler and intended to be for the people. Western Europe was bloodied and financially ruined by two wars in fifty years which involved most of the world and focused on north-western Europe. That is a heavy influence for the creation of the European Union and the United Nations, with the desire to war no longer remaining strong in continental Europe. That's why VW -- a car company that is resolutely profitable in contrast to the film's sponsor: GM -- might not want to have their products associated with war any more. It's not unfair to GM to say that they have their head in the sand regarding their commercial viability.

Re:Explain this!

[SCHecklerX]

It didn't go unnoticed. That was a great way to work it in, and a little dig to VW, as bumblebee throws the salesman into it...

Re:Explain this!

[Kopiok]

GM Sponsorship.

Re:Explain this!

[glitch23]

I was prepared for it and it didn't matter to me that much. Bay had a deal with Chevy and since that was the new Camaro that is coming out either later this year or next (forget when it's first model year is) it made sense for him to use their car from that perspective. The fact it wasn't what Bumblebee used to be didn't really matter to me. The same source that told me Bumblebee was no longer a Camaro also told me Optimus Prime would have lips. He only wore his mask for a few seconds of the movie but I guess it didn't detract too much from the movie. I think the movie had a lot of good humor in it without too many stupid lines (fewer than the last few movies I've seen recently: Die Hard 4, Pirates 3, and Ocean's 13). I would have preferred a lot more transformers to be in the movie and for more battles to occur. My source is the latest issue of Wired. One of their writers talked with Michael Bay a few months back before the release.

The hard thing that always happens with Transformers shows or movies is that unless the director can be on the transformer who is talking you can get lost in who is saying what because you can't see them talking. I know a few times in the movie I wasn't quite sure who said what, you just have to pay attention to who may be moving around especially in a shot that includes 2 or more of them in order to figure out who is the focus of the shot at that time. It was just nice to be able to see the transformers again, in a good light, and enjoy the movie. It brought me back to my childhood a bit and I enjoyed it because of that.

Re:Explain this!

[Jace of Fuse!]

Simple. They're GM's little bitches, whored out for the sole purpose of making a 2.5 hour GM commercial.

Re:Explain this!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he was still a car, the transformation of Devastator from constructicon combiner into a tank (when there are already tanks available - Blitzwing or Brawl for example. Similarly, Hook would have been more suitable for the Bonecrusher character. I hated having Scorponok be the new version rather than the classic fortress - here is hoping that we get Metroplex or Fortress Maximus and Tripicon in any sequel. Megatron as a jet and Optimus with no trailer? The F-15 to F-22 change for Starscream was acceptable I guess.

Re:Explain this!

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice nod to the REAL Bumblebee

Uh... hate to break it to you, but there's no "real" Bumblebee. It was a toy. They're all toys. The whole Transformers thing... it's a gigantic toy commercial. For selling toys.

This may crush you for life, but... there's no Santa Claus. Oh, by the way, there's no Easter Bunny, or Sandman, or Boogie Man either.

Sounds like a fabulous movie

[Colin Smith]

To miss. Much like all the rest of the cack out just now.

Why movies suck so much now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much computer generated crap, too little plot and real drama. Any questions?

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[LordKaT]

An old girlfriend of mine always thought life was full of drama. If you kissed her she had to turn it into one big long sloppy "kiss at sunset" kind of thing. I found it really annoying, because she would always have the mentality of "oh baby, let's make this long and last forever" and in my mind all I could think was "sit on my face, bitch!"

I think there's a similar problem in Hollywood: we have a group of people obsessed with drama (rather than telling a story) to the point that we end up with a bunch of scenes that are nothing but overly dramatic and annoying. They've got drama soaking their brains and all I can think is "sit on my face, bitch!"

Well, maybe that's more my problem since I lack a girlfriend currently. Still, I think the point stand: Hollywood needs to give out free women at movies.

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[neonmonk]

Mod parent up!@

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's some solid truth right there, fella.

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[Lisandro]

Still, I think the point stand: Hollywood needs to give out free women at movies.

Oh, hush. You had me at "still".

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it really annoying, because she would always have the mentality of "oh baby, let's make this long and last forever" and in my mind all I could think was "sit on my face, bitch!"...

Well, maybe that's more my problem since I lack a girlfriend currently. For the life of me, I can't imagine why...

Re:Why movies suck so much now.

[StikyPad]

I think you may have misinterpreted the nature of such an arrangement; specifically, which party is gratified and which is inconvenienced by your risqué suggestion. Proper rephrasing and/or repositioning is left as an exercise to the reader.

Tag Marketing

[Deliveranc3]

Et tu anonymous blogging internet marketoids?

in depth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it as "in depth" as their twin towers crap? PM sucks, I learned a lot about physics from their site in the 90's and haven't been back since.

the secret

[nomadic]

Apparently, using real cars as models presented some interesting problems for the folks at Industrial Light and Magic, who had to figure out how a recognizable chunk of steel can fold into robot

Believe it or not, I think they used some sort of "computer" at some point to actually do the special effects.

Re:the secret

[Kingrames]

Having seen the HBO special on TV, I thought it was interesting that rather than do everything in CG, they actually did most of the special effects with real cars, explosives, and lots of stunt crews.

It may look just as good as CG in the theater, and you might never be able to tell the difference, but seeing the cars explode and fly everywhere really put me in the mood to want to see the movie, and I think the director really has the right idea in mind: mindless carnage.

Re:the secret

[nweis]

Strictly speaking, "special effects" usually refers to mechanical devices designed for a scene. An explosion or vehicle collision are both examples of special effects (as long as they actually happen, and are caught on film).

Visual effects, on the other hand, are added during the editing process (most commonly with computers, nowadays), and include things like lightsabers, talking animals, and vehicles that morph into giant alien robots.

What about the script?

[pzs]

Special effects are the part Hollywood loves to explain, because they can show off about how many flops they have. What I'd like to know is how a movie with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars can have a worse script than a lot of the content on YouTube.

I haven't seen Transformers, but I can bet that the script will rank alongside such fetid, barftastic tripe as Star Wars, the later X-Men and Spiderman movies and various other whizz-bang blockbusters. Most of the time I'd rather listen to my brain atrophy than what the characters have to say.

Don't even get me started about the carbon cost of sending the actors around the world to whore out their product, practising their sincerity as they pretend they thought the movie was challenging and inspiring, rather than just a paycheck larger than most of us will make in a lifetime.

The world sucks. Somebody shoot me.

Peter

Re:What about the script?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yikes, did someone pee in your cornflakes this morning or what?

Re:What about the script?

[pzs]

Now that you mention it, they did taste a bit acidic.

Peter

Re:What about the script?

[liquidzero4]

Peter!!!

Smile, Life is good, enjoy it. This is not a film that's looking to win an academy award. It's supposed to fun / cool. If you want a good script read some Shakespeare or watch "Driving Miss Daisy"

Re:What about the script?

[despisethesun]

It can be fun/cool without treating the audience like fucking retards. Even the new Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson comedy looked like it was going to have a better script than this piece of shit.

Re:What about the script?

[Planesdragon]

Most of the time I'd rather listen to my brain atrophy than what the characters have to say.

That's what happens when you sit around and bitch, loser.

It's a movie, not a political dialog. Not a scientfic experiment. A movie. It's meant to be watched, and enjoyed, and possibly re-watched.

Re:What about the script?

[pzs]

> That's what happens when you sit around and bitch, loser.

No, in fact what I do is I just don't go to see these films anymore. Blockbuster profit margins are getting squeezed all the time. I wonder if it's because less people are going. I wonder if this is because they're not very good.

> It's a movie, not a political dialog. Not a scientfic experiment. A movie. It's meant to be watched, and enjoyed, and possibly re-watched.

I don't expect a political dialog. I do expect a film that doesn't suck. I enjoy light and entertaining films, but when they've put no effort at all into the script, it's still painful.

Examples of blockbusters that get it right: The Indiana Jones films, the Die Hard movies, the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. It can be done, but most of the time they don't bother.

Peter

Citroen (a french car manfacturer) did it first

[sjwest]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bf1IP8qrsyM This is when Hollywood fails. If you into dancing and ice skating cars - who really needs to see a film , btw these are shown as tv adverts in europe.

Re:Citroen (a french car manfacturer) did it first

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really sad is that you felt the need to explain what country manufactures Citroens.

Seriously, don't they teach you guys ANYTHING over there ? I know they probably won't mention it in school but hey, it's like explaining that Nokia is from Finland or Mitsubishi is Japanese.

Unless you either have no brain or have been living is suspended animation for the last 150 years, how the hell is it possible NOT to know that Citroen is French ???????

Misleading subject

[Anonymous Coward]

I was expecting some major breakthrough in our fundamental understanding of how electromagnetics (Namely transformers) works.

No free energy today then I guess :-(

Am I the only one who thought....

[fizze]

....that they are going to elaborate on the electrical device?

*shrug*
I guess that identifies me as a geek, then?

Re:Am I the only one who thought....

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, in this case, more of a knob.

Re:Am I the only one who thought....

[mblase]

....that they are going to elaborate on the electrical device?

Well, in the movie, there was that brief joke where Sam's dad thought the mess in his backyard was caused by a falling power transformer.

The joke completely bypassed most of the audience, of course.

I had the exact opposite experience

[Liquidrage]

I thought the movie was superb. One of the few movies I've been too that got a ovation from the audience at the end.

It was a mindless action movie and there is nothing wrong with that. Certain "critics" act like every movie needs to have some deep philosophical meaning.
I wanted to see giant space alien robots beat the crap out of each other and the movie delivered in spades. You claim that most of the action shots are already in trailers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apparently you missed the last half of the entire movie.

To me it's as if you went to a fireworks show and are now complaining that they didn't take the time to explain the type and origin of each and every shell that was ignited.
Myself, I prefer to just enjoy the show. If I want the meaning of life I'll pick up Kant.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought anyone who thinks that this movie is superb should go back to Texas and re-attend grade school.

Mind you, how long do you give it before the military fund a project to make a transforming walking tank, and Bush starts to propose foreign policy based on Transformers' concepts?....

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want the meaning of life I'll pick up Kant. Or Monty Python, I heard they show boobies.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: People might like you more if you got over yourself and removed the stick from your ass.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[liquidzero4]

I completely agree with you 100%. It's not meant to be the greatest film ever written. It's meant to be entertaining and that it is. I had the same experience; it's the only movie I've been to in the past 6 years that got a standing ovation at the end.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Liquidrage]

Not every movie can be as artistically satisfying as Brokeback Mountain.

Though as someone that has never seen that movie I'm only guessing as to the type of hot movie action you find satisfying.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[glwtta]

If I want the meaning of life I'll pick up Kant.

Isn't there some kind of middle ground? I suppose there's nothing wrong with just going to a movie to see things go "boom", but why can't it be a decent movie in addition to that? There's a lot of room between random sensory stimulation and "meaning of life", why must they all rush to the very extreme of that spectrum? (I'm guessing laziness, but I could be wrong...)

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[rpillala]

You can have both. I think it's an obvious example, but look at Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. One difference between your fireworks example and this movie is that fireworks shows are ephemeral. The movie, as opposed to being a one-off, is going to be around for a long time.

At the beginning, I was a little irritated by the guys' derision for Spanish. I put it aside and thought "ok maybe it'll come back and bite them in the ass later" but I don't remember that happening. What do you expect from this kind of movie though, right? No, I expect better from anyone living in modern society. The existence of other, better action movies makes this one less.

It's possible, as you say, to just enjoy the show. I did, and I hope there's another one. Transformers would have been an even better movie that stands up to repeated viewings if there had been some more coherence and focus. Michael Bay said in an interview that he wasn't really interested in making a movie about some toys from the 80's. I can respect that. Spielberg didn't approach it that way: he said "this is a movie about a boy getting his first car." It was the simplicity and human interest that attracted Bay to the concept. IMO that was lost in the shuffle.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Liquidrage]

I think a lot of movies try walk the middle. Private Ryan for example did just that. That movie was a blend of action scenes and character development.

Not every movie that walks the middle is good though. I don't think there's a % based formula that leads to a great movie.
It either works or it doesn't.

I was entertained by Transformers due to the sprinkling of lighthearted comedy on a base of pure action. The iconic nature of the film certainly helped, but regardless I was throughly entertained for 2 hours. Which is what I want going to a movie. I enjoy all types of movies and I'm not too concerned about the formula or genre of the movie as much as did I have a good time watching it.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[spazLizard]

You mean the concept where one group is incessantly searching for sources of energy to maintain it's dominance :)

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Uthic]

I always find it odd how people enjoy mindless entertainment. Nothing wrong with a movie that has a plot..that's not that deep but isn't asininely crafted (Star Wars' plot was kinda..meh, and it was fun to watch, for example). You can find a decent medium. But, meh, Bruckheimer and Bay put this crap out and people pay in droves to see it.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Zebedeu]

What do you mean by "standing ovation"?
Were people clapping at the end of the movie? Is this normal where you live?

I don't know, maybe it's normal in some cultures, but I still can't get past people clapping after the plane lands -- if I though landing a plane was some work of art, I would never have boarded!

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Adambomb]

BRIAN:
        Look! I can explain! I--
        [smack]
JUDITH:
        No! Let me explain, Mrs. Cohen!
MANDY:
        Who--
JUDITH:
        Your son is a born leader. Those people out there are following him because they believe in him, Mrs. Cohen. They believe he can give them hope-- hope of a new life, a new world, a better future!
MANDY:
        Who's that?!
BRIAN:
        Oh! That's... Judith, Mum. Judith. Mother. Hmm.
        [smack]
        Aaaah!

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[misleb]

I don't know, maybe it's normal in some cultures, but I still can't get past people clapping after the plane lands -- if I though landing a plane was some work of art, I would never have boarded!

Apparently you've never tried to land a plane before!

-matthew

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Chris whatever]

I like mindless movies, what i hate is Movies that are made by Michael Bay

When i heard there was going to be a transformer movie, i jump for joy, then i sa that Michael Bay AKA "Number one american flag abuser in movie" was doing the movie and strangely Steven spielberg as an executive (that must be why we did not see thousand of american flag waving in the wind)

but still Great Actions, FX are astounding, only problem for me was that stupid dramatic music everytime one robot or human falls down, he gets sweaty, looks in pain, then everything goes to slo mo, guys looks at girl camera turns around 360 degrees, boys looks around at girl, then another 360 shot.

WHO care when bumblebee got frozen, did they think we would cry or when he's got his leg torn off? Man i wanted to have more carnage more robots beating the crap out of each other and not corny love scene betweem bad actors.

And talk about wated time, there even a shot where the camera shoots a sign on the sidewalk from a bar, i mean, WHAT THE HELL!!!
Michael bay should retire from making anymore movies, go back to music video.

Pull out the transformers and that was Pearl harbor all over again.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[maxume]

There should be an applausometer in every movie theater, and upon reaching some relatively low threshold, it should blow itself up, along with all the people applauding. I mean, why not?

I'm sure the projec^h^h^h^h^h^hguy-who-pushes-play goes home feeling swell though.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[maxume]

Clearly you have never seen The Butterfly Effect.

Now I'm laughing uncontrollably at the thought of all the people that took that first sentence seriously.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Were people clapping at the end of the movie? Is this normal where you live?"

I cannot speak for the person that posted, but I've seen a number of movies and this is the first time I've been to one where the audience was genuinely entertained. Maybe it was because of childhood nostalgia or maybe it was because it was midnight and people were anxious to let loose, but the movie had everybody hooked right from the first scene. When the Blackout scene ended, people started clapping. More clapping when Optimus appeared... laughter at the humorous scenes, etc.

No, it's not normal, but the people I saw it with were chomping at the bit to see this flick, and they loved it.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[TrekkieGod]

Were people clapping at the end of the movie? Is this normal where you live?

I've been to a few movies where this happened, the latest one being spiderman 3. It's a pet peeve of mine. Every single time it happens I want to yell out, "the actors can't hear you clapping, you morons"

It's fine for people to like something. It's fine for them to be excited, and it's just dandy for them to show it. However, I don't understand how you do that by CLAPPING. Who are you clapping to??

And yeah, you can guess how I feel about people clapping when a plane lands...

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Zebedeu]

Eheh. Last week I was watching a firework show, and at the end, as you'd expect, people were clapping.
The problem is that we were watching the show from a bridge about 5km from where the fireworks were being shot, so my comment was exactly the same as yours in the cinema.

Now what I am wondering about is who would clap at Spiderman 3. Why? Next thing you're going to tell me they were also clapping at Pirates of the Caribbean 3...

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Zebedeu]

I guess if you get into it, it could be fun, but if you don't then it's pretty annoying that everyone is making noises during the movie.

I remember when I went to see Star Wars 3 there was this guy next to me explaining the whole movie to his girlfriend who apparently had never seen a Star Wars movie in her life.
It was the first and, until now, only time I ever asked someone at the cinema to shut up.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[StikyPad]

I still can't get past people clapping after the plane lands

I'll bet you're one of those bastards who doesn't applaud when his taxi arrives at its destination either.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[desideria]

When I lived in LA everyone clapped at the end of movies. It seemed extremely stupid to me.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[bh_doc]

Now what I am wondering about is who would clap at Spiderman 3. Why?

Why do people watch TV sports in a bar, surrounded by friends, shouting and whooping? The players certainly can't hear them, so what's the point?

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Zebedeu]

Well, in the part that you're quoting I'm actually taking a jab at the quality of Spiderman 3 as a movie.

Anyway, as I said earlier, if you can get into it (and I certainly do when watching football matches with my friends or other supporters of my team), I suppose it's fun, but 1) movies are not as exciting as live sports and 2) in general if I go to a cinema I expect to be able to hear the movie.

I guess for me it's just weird to get really into pre-packaged entertainment. It's kind of like complimenting the chef for the great frozen pizza I had at dinner.
But hey, if you do it, more power to you, as long as you do it *after* the movie :-)

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[bh_doc]

Well, yeah, if someone's in a movie clapping and cheering so loudly that other people can't hear it, then they're just being inconsiderate.

I saw Transformers with a group of friends opening night here in AU. I enjoyed it. When at the end other people in the audience started clapping, I did too, enthusiastically. My point is I don't get people that say they don't get people who do that. It's a social thing, much akin to cheering at the TV, and not "I must tell the author my appreciation *clapclapclap*".

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Legion303]

I've noticed an inverse relationship between the quality of a movie and the likelihood of applause when the end credits roll. It's almost as if people want to reassure themselves they didn't just blow the cost of a middling-to-decent meal on overpriced snacks and a heap of shit film.

The first time I experienced the applause thing was after _Phantom Menace_, at which point me, my wife and our friends all wondered if people were clapping because the long nightmare was finally over.

And _Phantom Menace_ was better than _Transformers_.

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[Legion303]

"Why do people watch TV sports in a bar, surrounded by friends, shouting and whooping?"

Because they're douchebags?

Re:I had the exact opposite experience

[WuphonsReach]

I don't know, maybe it's normal in some cultures, but I still can't get past people clapping after the plane lands -- if I though landing a plane was some work of art, I would never have boarded!

Try a landing in a crosswind situation? It definitely looks pretty difficult. Check out some of the videos on Youtube (search for "crosswind").

Or maybe the passengers are simply happy that their ordeal is at an end?

Actually, I was thinking the other day about why someone wouldn't praise someone else for effort, even expected effort. There are a lot of folks out there who won't say "Thank you" or "Good job", even though it doesn't cost them anything. Are they afraid (or believe) that by building someone else up, they're making themselves look worse? Or are they simply too self-centered to value giving praise to others? And I'm sure there are other motivations that I haven't listed.

So, why can't you get past people clapping when the plane lands? Why not join in? It may be nothing more then a spontaneous celebration of safe arrival.

Not totally rocket science?

[clonmult]

All they needed to do was to :

1) go into a toys'r'us
2) buy any old transformers toy thats been around for years
3) copy.

or in a slant on good old Slashdot speak :
1) tell your manager at ILM you're working on methods of building the new transformers
2) but the old thing from Toys'r'us (or dig it out from your attic), copy it, bill manager for the endless hours of "research".
3) PROFIT!

Jobs a good un.

Re:Not totally rocket science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, they could have done the same with the plot!

Not so quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Steorm Free-energy Device Demo today!!!

Pleeze

[maroberts]

I didn't suggest a CitroenBot Transformer, just using the guys who made the ads.

Anyway, I wouldn't call a Camaro beautiful. Brutal & unsubtle maybe, but then that fits in with the Transformers ethos.

Re:Pleeze

[Machtyn]

I completely agree. The Citroen commercial, and the transformers of the 70's-80's, actually looked like cars when they transformed. I was actually very surprised when Optimus Prime transformed and somewhat looked like the original, red paint and all, despite all the other autobots looking much much different. (The new paint job on OP was pretty cool, though the stripes didn't come out after he transformed.)

My impression.

[MaWeiTao]

I thought the story for Transformers was pure dreck. Most of it made little sense. It felt like the story was written by a 13 year old. It's sad when a cartoon makes more sense than a live action movie. Huge portions were pointless and completely irrelevant to the main storyline. It was pure Michael Bay crapola. He even managed to squeeze in hints of a goofy love story.

That said, anything with the Transformers was awesome. It was immensely entertaining watching them transform and battle. It was good enough that I came away satisfied despite all the crap.

I generally liked the robot designs, although not so much Megatron. And the small Transformer was obnoxious. Why they couldn't have Rumble or something is beyond me. My main problem with all the Transformers is that they were far too complicated. They all had these tiny moving parts and coupled with Michael Bay's penchant for twitchy cameras it made it difficult to sometimes follow the action. There were times where I couldn't tell if I was watching an arm, a leg or a head. And when the robots were intertwined it was even worse. This was particularly bad for the Decepticons because they were so monochromatic.

I thought it was funny when the small robot, made up of a good deal of very resilient steel of some sort transforms into a small stereo and this woman carries him around like it's no big deal.

The Popular Science article does little more than serve as an advertisement for this movie. "The Best Special Effects Ever?" That's what they imply every time they have an article on some new effects-laden movie. I agree, the effects were very good, except when an actor occassionally wasn't looking in right the quite direction or really acting at the right moment. But they were great.

However, for me, the best special effects are those that don't remind me they're special effects. And for that I'd probably have to go back to the earlier Star Wars movies, or perhaps 2001. Nevertheless, I did enjoy Transformers. I do think the story would have been far better had they just followed the story in the cartoons more closely.

Re:My impression.

[despisethesun]

I hated this movie because of all the parts that weren't "transforming robots fighting with each other". The concept doesn't have to be so shitty like some here would say. The Dreamwave and IDW Transformers (and the old Marvel US series from about issue 40 onward) series feature excellent writing and turned the TF universe into a legitimately good space opera. Those comics aren't without their flaws, but they show that it's possible to write something based on a toy line, take it seriously, and churn out something that's worth reading, something that's entertaining without talking down to you or treating you like an idiot. Unfortunately, Michael Bay and his writers are not similarly capable. The plot for this movie was garbage, the acting/voice-acting was shit, and the script isn't even worth using as toilet paper. Even the humour was shit. I mean maybe for a Rob Schneider fan it was clever and edgy but really it was garbage.

Like you said, though, any time the Transformers were on screen (and not talking), it was fucking awesome. It was the purest form of eye candy. It wasn't even eye candy, it was eye cocaine, you could get high on it. But then someone would open their mouth, or there would be a scene where it was just humans, and I'd realise what a shit movie I'd walked into. I guess the action was enough for some people. Other people are getting by on sheer nostalgia. (It's live action Transformers, how could it be bad?) Me? I expect my eye candy to have a little more substance to it. I mean, I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, but maybe something on par with Star Wars, or even the 1986 movie for fuck's sake.

Michael Bay should just start directing pornography. People don't care about the plot in that, either.

PS: You asked why they couldn't have Rumble in this movie, but the small Decepticon is close. It's actually Frenzy, who didn't show up very often in the cartoon but he was in the old movie. The red-and-black Rumble lookalike.

Re:My impression.

[The Queen]

It's sad when a cartoon makes more sense than a live action movie.

Why?

I think it's sad that cartoons are automatically relegated to children's entertainment, and even worse, that they are expected to be nothing but fluff. Many cartoons have depth, vision, and meaning; there's nothing wrong with challenging the mind of a child, or an adult, for that matter...though movies like this one seem to lower the bar across the board. Perhaps Devo was right.

Your explanation for shittyness, sir

[Junior J. Junior III]

Two words: Michael Bay.

Coming up next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Transformers - The Return with new characters like Soundwave (all cheer now!). And when we're through with all this crap we'll be presenting the next 80's cartoon: M.A.S.K., this should be a breeze now that we got the transforming routines all setup.

"Let the quest for more money begin!".

One annoyed animation fan who gets sick and tired of $$$ companies (usually:) raping the memories of very good cartoons because they sunk to a level where they can only copy hits from the past.

Wow. Wrong transformers

[AWhistler]

When I first read the headline, I thought "Hmmm...did somebody find a neat trick to do with all those laptop, phone charger, and LAN switch power supplies?"

Then I thought "Oh, the Transformers MOVIE. Duh. It should have said that."

I think an article about the first would have been more interesting.

Link Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what happened but your link got butchered by Slashdot. Here's the correction: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bf1IP8qrsyM.

-Kijori (Posted anonymously)

Megatron for President

[Machtyn]

Okay, so I thought this was pretty cool.
Long B&W version
Short color version

Bumblebee an alcoholic?

[brunes69]

When it came to breathing life into characters such as Bumblebee, the protective Autobot, ILM needed to think backwards to fill in the blanks (and the junk in the drunk) between finished robot sketches and real-life GM cars.

Oh noble Bumblebee, how I thought I knew you!

Re:Bumblebee an alcoholic?

[Opportunist]

You didn't watch your Futurama, did you? Of course not, or else you'd know what happens to robots that don't watch their alcohol intake. Do you want Bumble to rust?

Re:Bumblebee an alcoholic?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, yes.

Template effects PR

[suv4x4]

It happens after every big fx movie.

"Effects like these would be impossible 2 years ago".
"It took us hundreds of people to make".
"One frame renders in a week on a supercomputer".
"Each robot is made out of a milliard of unique polygons and pixels".
"It was very hard for actors to talk to nothing".

But actually we know all this. Yes it was complex. Maybe this is why they took something like 100 million dollars for it.
I prefer to enjoy the work they did, versus read the same retired "look at how complex it was" tirade they publish every time.

Re:Template effects PR

[glitch23]

"One frame renders in a week on a supercomputer".

Actually, the latest Wired says that (in a talk with Michael Bay), 1 frame with multiple bots took about 38 hours to render. Of course, that was using whatever ILM had at the time. Those CGI companies always try to keep their farms up to date to pack more power into the same acreage.

But actually we know all this. Yes it was complex. Maybe this is why they took something like 100 million dollars for it.

About $150 million actually. The complexity this time came from making an automobile believably transform into a robot. Bay says the hardest part was when semi wheels turn into feet. I do hope for a sequel. Considering its lineage and the movie itself, I liked it better than, for example, Pirates 3 which may or may not mean much if you despised that movie.

they should make...

[Anonymous Coward]

a transformers porno

You just explained what's wrong with movies today

[Opportunist]

Basically, what you said applies not only to Transformers, but to a whole lot of movies that came out recently (read: within the last 10 or so years). Great effects, great stunts, great eye candy... and a script that consists of the producer's napkin scribbles at his last business meeting.

But it gets worse over the years, it seems. Another thing you said is a big problem of today's movies: All the good scenes are already in the trailers. You almost get the feeling that movies today consist of a handful of good (and expensive) scenes, with boring, pointless and cheap fillers wrapped around them.

The movie contains "nearly 50 transformation". NEARLY 50? The average cartoon show had more in 30 minutes! And it didn't even try to pretend it was telling a story. It was selling action figures, dammit!

By that development, I'd not be surprised if a movie of the future runs akin to this:

1. Opener. The hero and his pal stand around somewhere in a studio. Why a studio? Because it's cheap to film a studio in a studio.
2. Filler. They talk about something, weather, general banter, maybe a bit of bickering (if it's an action comedy) or one laments about his lost wife (for an action film or chick flick).
3. Action (for the trailer). Someone comes around the corner in a car, tons of bullets fly around, some cars get blown up, hero's buddy dies. Should be good for 5 minutes or so.
4. More filler. Hero is shown walking down the streets for about 30 minutes, randomly meeting old friends that can't or don't want to help him, or maybe he picks up a new sidekick. This would have the beneficial side effect of allowing to fill another 15-30 minutes pointlessly with a pathetic attempt at creating some sort of background for his new best friend. And he tells him about a drug operation just 'round the corner.
5. A bit more action, to wake the viewers and to create something more for the trailers. Hero and buddy blast down the druggies, turn the house into a pile of sawdust and exchange lame wisecracker comments.
6. Hero and buddy are arrested because some shyster gets them for unnecessary brutality. And to prove that it's unnecessary, the next 30 minutes contain none. Instead, hero and buddy try to escape from the prison to prove their innocence (don't ask, it's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to be cheap, ok?).
7. Big action, with the buddy saving the hero from the drop to death by risking his own life.
8. Another filler with the hero telling his new buddy constantly that he'll get back for that and buddy trying to shut him up.
9. Grand finale. Dunno what should happen, just make everything blow up with the rest of the budget.

I hope I just didn't give the plot for Die Hard 5 away.

What's really, really sad is...

[Opportunist]

...that it would've been more interesting, most likely.

Re:You just explained what's wrong with movies tod

[timeOday]

Another thing you said is a big problem of today's movies: All the good scenes are already in the trailers.

I guess by the time you watch the first scene, the transaction is over from the producer's perspective - you paid your money and you're not getting it back, and hardly anybody pays to watch a movie a second time anyways.

Yes!

[anza]

This movie just zapped me away. It had high potential, but as it was based on an 80's cartoon I thought it wouldn't be that current.

But the movie took my expectations and reversed them!

arsewank

[Anonymous Coward]

# select * from fuck where userid = 'me' and action = 'give'.

0 rows returned.

"Effects Pollution!"

[chromozone]

I can't go to "special effects" movies anymore. With the advance of digital technology it seems there is no gimmick that gets left out of a movie. "Whiz Bang" movies today reminds me of a 13 year old girl starting to using make-up and who just packs all sorts of junk on her face. It was Michelangeo who said its not what gets put into a work of art that makes it great but what gets left out. Too many movies pack on layers of audio visual junk that cause the sum of the film to be less than its parts. The more "real" they try to make things look the phonier they look too me. The gimmicks stand out on their own as if in relief, and they dont even blend into scene or movie quite often. So much money gets spent making scenes with these gimmicks that I think people get reluctant to leave them out and they just over-inflate the films run times. Scenes of secondary import to the story become too long because there is some special effect. The worst for me are the sound effects. I never heard so much excessive, synthetic noise pollution in my life. I don't know how people can spend money at theaters anymore all things considered. First a patron gets pelted with 20 minutes of ads and trailers and then (if its a FX movie) get assaulted with over-cooked AV. Thank God for DVDs with a remote.

Re:"Effects Pollution!"

[steveo777]

I was a fan of my dad's idea when it came to video cassettes and their previews. The first time he watched them he'd fast-forward through the previews, note the spot where the movie's multiple intros start (the Pegasus flying and whatnot) on a card or something, and rewind to that point. He'd then take the tape to his work bench, rip out all the priviews, slice them out, connected it (not sure if he taped it or melted it, but they held on pretty well) and we never worried about previews again.

Re:"Effects Pollution!"

[WuphonsReach]

not sure if he taped it or melted it, but they held on pretty well

Analog magnetic tape (and possibly digital) can be "spliced" using splicing tape.

It was a pretty common endeavor back in the 80s. Audio cassette tape (or even reel-to-reel) was often mangled by audio decks, so you'd have to trim out the mangled portion and salvage the rest by cutting the tape diagonally and then putting splice tape across the ends.

I wasn't aware that there were VHS tape splicing kits, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Re:"Effects Pollution!"

[steveo777]

I could just ask him, but I'm pretty sure his method involved pulling apart the cassette and hot gluing to the spindle or just taping in a place where the head would never see the info. That way he wouldn't have to worry about cutting and splicing correctly.

NOT special effects. Visual Effects

[shidarin'ou]

Special Effects are on set. Visual Effects are post production CGI, compositing, etc.

A special effect is a car being rigged to explode on set. A visual effect is a giant 4 story CG robot kicking that car.

We're two entirely seperate industries. Thanks for your interest however!

Re:NOT special effects. Visual Effects

[Chelloveck]

Special Effects are on set. Visual Effects are post production CGI, compositing, etc. A special effect is a car being rigged to explode on set. A visual effect is a giant 4 story CG robot kicking that car. We're two entirely seperate industries. Thanks for your interest however!

Eh, whatever. That's a distinction that's only important to the people whose names are in the credits crawl. To the audience, though, it's all just "effects". Special, visual, foley, whatever.

We're to the point where film makers can show us literally anything they can imagine on the screen. Over-the-top effects just aren't a big spectacle anymore. I keep hoping producers will someday realize that and focus first on the story, then add on effects to support the story. Not just make a series of gosh-wow effects sequences loosely tied together with inane dialog. That kind of movie is about as exciting to me as watching someone else play a video game.

Re:NOT special effects. Visual Effects

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, whatever? This is Slashdot, not some marketplace where ill-informed old folks congregate.

Going by your line of reasoning, then the people here shouldn't care about the difference between a "virus" and a "worm". Unfortunately they do so I find this clarification necessary and insightful.

Not a fun job

[Animats]

Some years ago, when morphing was new, I was over at Pacific Data Images. An unhappy young woman was seated at a display, with a picture of a car's front in one window and a tiger's face in another. She was trying to come up with a set of control points for the morph. It just wasn't working.

You can morph anything to anything; no matter what points you pick, the start and end states will be the input images. Keeping it from looking stupid is the hard part.

The trend today is to do the tough morphs behind the scenes; the parts in front are moving around without too much distortion, while the stuff that's changing in blatantly unrealistic ways is obscured. This is a cheat, but that's how Hollywood works.

Right now, effects technology is ahead of screenwriting. With a big enough budget, you really can do anything on screen. But look at the action movies coming out: Spiderman 3. Pirates 3. Shrek 3. Die Hard 4. Harry Potter 5. And last year's Rocky 6. Not much originality there.

Megan Fox

[hellfire]

and in my mind all I could think was "sit on my face, bitch!"

While oogling Megan Fox throughout the movie, this is all I could think of, too.

the destruction

[Anonymous Coward]

"It may look just as good as CG in the theater, and you might never be able to tell the difference, but seeing the cars explode and fly everywhere really put me in the mood to want to see the movie, and I think the director really has the right idea in mind: mindless carnage."

GTA III: The movie.

where were the transformers in the movie?

[glitch23]

I was waiting for Megan Fox to transform into a naked chick but never saw it. Were there supposed to be transformers in the movie? If so I never noticed them. I may have to watch the DVD in slow motion to find them. Of course, slow motion just extends the time Megan Fox is hanging over the open hood of that car....um..I gotta go relieve some uh, stress, yes, that's it, stress.

Special effects?

[that this is not und]

There's a primary winding, a secondary winding, and occasionally several additional secondary windings. The only effects are all electromagnetic. I guess the eddy currents could be termed to be 'special effects.'

Or are we talking about some children's television programming?

don't just don't

[br4nd0nh3at]

Transformers was a decent movie, period.

Re:don't just don't

[blloyd62]

Apparently including a plot and interesting story line is not required to be defined decent. miami closets

A GOOD "how hard it was"-

[solios]

If you want a good "behind the scenes" documentary, the one on The Last Starfighter is easily the best. CGI was in its infancy then - these days, it's just "bigger and more" of techniques that were pioneered with movies like TLS and Tron. The TLS documentary (which is on the TLS DVD) includes some great stories about the tricks they pulled and breakthroughs they managed in order to get the thing done - even more impressive when they tell you that the rendering hardware (which was, truly, a supercomputer) was so overtaxed that they could either preview the renders or output to film, but not both.

Oh, and there's a brief clip of some X-wings. They pitched the idea of CGI spaceships to Lucas between Star Wars and ESB - and Lucas scoffed at them.

A guy who was ahead of the curve with motion control had a chance to stay ahead of the curve with CGI and instead waited twenty years to wade back in doing the exact same thing everyone else is, only bigger and more of it. Ha.

Re:You just explained what's wrong with movies tod

[Yoozer]

You forgot something:

1.5, 2.5, up to n.5: Blatant product placement.

Re:You just explained what's wrong with movies tod

[Anonymous Coward]

"By that development, I'd not be surprised if a movie of the future runs akin to this"

Don't be. Lars (Von) Trier does shit like this and calls it "Dogma". Other shitheads call it "art" or "culture" (mainly euro child-molesting film "critics"). Only Lars takes out the bullets and anything fun.

Ratatoullie has better effects

[greggman]

Well, I guess it depends on how we defined effects but I think at the next Siggraph there will be far more techincal papers on the problems solved by Pixar for Ratatouille than there will for whoever made Transformers.

I liked both movies but the CG in Ratatoullie was on a whole other level above Transformers.

Re:Ratatoullie has better effects

[Avatar8]

I saw both of these movies on 7/4. Ratatoullie in the morning with my daughters, and Transformers by myself late that night.

I agree the digital effects, animation and general physics that went into the motion was much better in Ratataoullie. I thought it interesting, too, that between both movies, Ratatoillie received a much better reaction: crowd noises/reactions, laughing, spontaneous clapping and applause at the end. I enjoyed it more than Transformers, too, which surprised me.

Commas

[Rosy At Random]

I was getting worried for a minute there, but to your credit you did seem to get the hang of them towards the end.

Re:You just explained what's wrong with movies tod

[Opportunist]

Well, I don't even pay for the movie yet. I only saw the trailers.

So I stopped complaining about having to sit through trailers for 5 movies whenever I go to watch one. For the price of one, I get to see six!

Re:Guerrilla marketing PONIES!!!1!11!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a fun movie. It has cars, robots, boobs, car chase & explosions. What more could you want.

OMG, PONIES!!!!

(j/k, I like unicorns WAY better, fer shure...)