While I'm sure you could dig up a fan somewhere that is completely blind to all the mistakes, goofs, and insane leaps of logic and physics that the G1 cartoon made I don't think there are many people who love the cartoon that would call it perfect.

Instead it seems to be more of a case that G1 is beloved for what it was instead of for getting everything right. When Transformers first hit the airwaves it was part of a flood of 22 minute toy tie in cartoons. All of them cheaply made and having to just make things up as they went along to sell the next line of toys. Out of all those 80's toy cartoons you just had a few line Transformers, GI Joe, Masters of the Universe, or Thundercats to endure towards revivals.

Comparing G1 to it's cartoon rivals at the time and while other fan boys will argue their cartoon was the best Transformers stands out as perhaps the best series of that time period.

Jump to the live action movies and I think with the budget and the army of talented film makers working on the movies some people were just expecting better results. Not perfection because you can find goofs and mistakes with any movie, but at least goofs and mistakes you'd have to look really close to catch. Unlike the G1 cartoon Transformers doesn't stand out against it's live action rivals. Sure live action Transformers is trouncing the hell out of live action GI Joe, but it doesn't look as good against something like live action Avengers or live action Batman.

If live action Transformers had hit all the right notes between new fans and old fans, people looking for a good story and people looking for huge action, the fans looking for epic film heroes and the people looking for epic film villains then I don't think you'd find nearly as much fussing by fans. Just look at the Avengers it's sure not a perfect film but it hits all the right notes for such a wide array of people that it's sort of the model people point to when they say I'm looking for this in a live action film.

 

I love G1 and I love the movies. Nice to meet you. Here's an answer to your problem, don't watch the movies.

 

I'm surprised a mod hasn't even LOOKED at this thread. This place is gonna turn into a war.

 

Bah, this is nothing, you should have seen it back in the really bad days. People threatening each other, death threats against members of the production team, calling each other horrible names, questioning the intelligence of anyone who didn't agree with you, threads having to be locked within an hour or two several times a day.

Thankfully the people who did want to make it some sort of war managed to get banned so this is all just mild disagreements between people who can respect that other fans will have a different opinion.

 

.... Wow. But seriously, this thread is getting a little out of hand.

 

^
this

 

We must be reading different threads because this one has been suprisingly calm and generally civil recently with some fairly decent discussion. It may have started out somewhat shaky but it's evolved and pretty settled now.
As Ash said, things have been far far worse in the past. If you think this thread is dangerous then your head would've probably exploded if you'd been around here for those previous times.

If you're so worried about this thread and how it's apparently going to turn the whole place into a warzone then just report it and let the mods deal with it if they decide you're right in your assessment. But don't try and make out a thread is the something terrible you want it to be just because it contains some initial negativity about Bay and his TF movies and you want it closed simply because of that.

Sometimes the best discussions and findings of middle ground between 'sides' can be realised in threads like these if they're given a chance to evolve and find their ground. Forty-odd pages can't be sniffed at. If this thread had really been so terrible it would've been closed within the first five pages.

 

with my axe!

 

Actually i believe the opposite when it comes to CGI making a good film and believe that CGI actually hinders film making in terms of actors being forced to react against nothing meaning that weak actors dont portray the emotion needed...

A smaller budget based on the film structure of Michael Bay's previous Transformers films means about the same length of character time spent on humans in Transformers Revenge of the fallen (2009) with a battle lasting about the same length as the battle in Transformers (2007)

 

I was thinking this thread is pretty well-tamed considering the subject matter and how many pages it's going on...

 

CGI has its limitations, but you have to rely heavily on CGI if you want to make a live action Transformers movie. There's simply no other way to do it.

 

You contradict yourself. And you seem to be grasping at these notions that a) CGI is the only thing that swells up a budget (tyler already said what other variants there are, and there are many many many variants) and b) that this would actually make for a worse movie.
CGI, and budget, do not dictate the quality of a movie, even a transformers one. CGI is expensive, but not more so then practical effects.

About CGI hindering a movie, CGI is a movie making tool, and like all movie making tools, when used right, it produces wonderfull results (see Lord of the rings, and especially gollum)

 

CGI has always felt like a mix bag to me. Some film makers have used it to great effect to produce fantastic looking scenes that just wouldn't be the same if they were doing forced perspective, stop motion, or all the other pre-CGI tricks. On the other hand it seems like CGI took the creative side out of some film makers. Just seemed like the effects were more creative in the original Star Wars than when Star Wars could do everything in CGI.

I kind of wonder as CGI becomes more common and there are more companies to subcontract parts of the CGI out to, if CGI gets cheaper to produce over time. When CGI first became a part of film making only the big budget films could afford it but now even the Syfy movie of the week can afford bad CGI.

 

And yet countless interviews and bonus materials reveal that actors - although they may not actively yearn to share a scene with a tennis ball on a stick - are then made to truly act and use their imagination for productions such as this. They often refer to it as "returning to stage acting", where they liken it to having a monologue on stage by yourself, or having to imagine the empty stage you're standing on as being filled with townspeople and buildings and whatnot. It's all a balancing act. Yes, having an actor act against nothing can definitely be a negative thing. But it can also prove very beneficial, making them flex their acting muscles. They need something to make eye-contact with, or in other cases, converse with a character who won't be created for months afterwards. It's something to act against. Something to play off of. Mary Ryan stood in for/acted out the a lot of robot dialogue for Transformers, apparently. Other times they used giant cardboard heads on sticks, sometimes nothing (depending entirely on the basis of the shot). What does it matter if they're acting against a green-screen or a tennis ball on a stick or an actor on a ladder that will be painted out?

Ash knows what he's talking about. CGI is like any other filmmaking technique. Providing the CGI is used competently, it's nothing more than another tool in the filmmaker's toolkit, one that is essential in the making of a movie like this. Use it wisely, and it will help the story, just like costumes, sets and cinematography.

 

TF1 and ROTF are very poor films for me, DOTM he got the balance right. But it can still be better done, for me he should have let someone else takeover the series. We have seen how a explosive film like the avengers can be done right, without the stupid humor, and shallow supermodels.

 

I unironically want to see a full scene acted out with those cardboard heads on sticks. Or a bunch of segmented cardboard bodies being moved by people in black bodysuits noh-theatre style.

 

That would've been a great thing to include on a gag-reel*. The on-set production staff hopping around with giant sticks and cardboard heads, falling over, etc..  

*Why the Bayformers films don't have bloopers and gag-reels is beyond me. For all of the attempted - and occasionally successful - humour in these films, you'd think that they'd have 10+ minutes of flubbed lines, different improv takes and whatnot. I mean, the number of takes they probably had of Anthony Anderson, John Turturro, Ken Jeong and John Malkovich alone deserves to be made public. Oh well...

 

This must exist somewhere.

 

Agreed. Bay doesn't seem to have a problem with the concept, as the credits for DotM included what could be considered a blooper reel of sorts....
No idea why these films didn't include something.

Also, to build off of what you said regarding actors and CGI Tyler....
If an actor simply can't do his or her job against what will be a CGI creation then they shouldn't be in the business they're in.

 

One could possibly argue that with parts of RotF, the gag reel was left in the actual movie...