Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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!
www.GrenadeHop.com
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?