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.
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.
..simply hired the guys who did the Citroen adverts.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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...
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
To miss. Much like all the rest of the cack out just now.
Deleted
Et tu anonymous blogging internet marketoids?
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).
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.
I looked at my watch when the movie was over and was very surprised....because I wasn't wearing one when I went in.
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.
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.
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.
Now that you mention it, they did taste a bit acidic.
Peter
....that they are going to elaborate on the electrical device?
*shrug*
I guess that identifies me as a geek, then?
Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mod parent up!@
And yes I made up the word actionny. We're talking about Hollywood here.
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"
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.
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 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.
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.
Two words: Michael Bay.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It had BOOBS?!?! in the US theaters??? :D
Whoa
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Well ok they, weren't BARE, but there was certain hintage/cleavage of boobs!
Let's hope they will be bare in the euro version (they probably won't be though *sniff)
;)
Dutchy here
This is the sig that says NI (again)
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.
Okay, so I thought this was pretty cool.
Long B&W version
Short color version
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!
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.
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
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...that it would've been more interesting, most likely.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Still, I think the point stand: Hollywood needs to give out free women at movies.
Oh, hush. You had me at "still".
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This poo is cold.
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.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
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.
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?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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?
"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.)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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?
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
You forgot something:
1.5, 2.5, up to n.5: Blatant product placement.
Yes, yes you can. It'd be like making a rerun of Herbie the Love Bug, and casting a Ford F150 as Herbie.
:P )
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...
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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.
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.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
> 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
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.
I was getting worried for a minute there, but to your credit you did seem to get the hang of them towards the end.
Would you like a slice of toast?
I hope you're not referring to the 80s. Most of the 80s movies had a recycled plot.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
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.
"Oh, say, can you see by the dawnzer lee light," sang Miss Binney
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!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But at least they HAD one! Hell, I'd already be happy if movies today DID recycle plots.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Apparently including a plot and interesting story line is not required to be defined decent. miami closets
Read up on Mr. Bay. He is presented with something and changes it to be more "explodey."
That is his gift and his curse.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.