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."
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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
..simply hired the guys who did the Citroen adverts.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
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.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
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.
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.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
Worst BBC News Stories
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.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.