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