Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by rusty26, Nov 10, 2012.
can we just get these movies animated in the form of stick figures.
(I love Stickdeath.com lol)
Personally, I think the TF Movieverse has had some really good ideas... its unfortunate that they're in the same movie as deep wangs, masturbation jokes and enemy scrotums.
The scene with Laserbeak and the little girl in DotM was one of the most genuinely chilling things I've seen in the entire TF franchise and after that we basically go to Deep Wang hijinks without skipping a beat.
Now that I would totally want to see. Damnit Bay. You almost had my money.
Umm... why? Granted the Robots and the scenary they interact with needs to be CGI mostly... however they could also use pracitcal effects for close interactions... i believe they built a giant green Prime at one stage so Sam could sit on his shoulder...
Nope, i already went through why i only listed certain reasons that swell up the budget - the main point was also not swelling up... but going down. The money Bay wants to spend only a little more than the money he spent on the first film - which barely had the robots appear or look nice and most of the scenes with the robots look terrible - especially Optimus's hand in the final battle.
Gollum is very over-rated to me in terms of being a CGI creature and its evident from many many scenes that the actors were not told where Gollum was in the scene (Either that or they didnt look at the 'green ball' and instead to the side of above.
It is not a real reaction. For example... if an old man walks up and tells you an upsetting story then you will show the emotions naturally each step of the way as the story progresses. If you are only reacting against what someone tells you is happening you dont feel the story on a personal level.
Well, and again assuming, as your argument seems to do, that the greatest portion of a budget goes into cgi, you have to realize that for movie one, they had to come up with totally new SFX and new they just can reuse them, and therefore allocating the money spent on development to animting more stuff. But again, the total budget is not indicative of the money spent on cgi, and that is in no way inidicative of the quality of the movie.
As for Gollum, the actor Andy Serkis was physically present in all scenes, they even developed new, on the spot, mocap technology just for him (that later was used for Avatar), so the actors were always interacting with a real person. I really don't get your criticism of him...
You do know that some of the greatest acting performances in the history of movies were made by an actor reacting to no one? Many many times, when you see an actor reacting to another actor, and the camera changes from one to another, they aren't actually acting together at the same time, and the illusion is acomplished later in editing. Some times the actors are not even present on set at the same time, and sometimes they don't even meet each other during production, ever. So an actor being able to aparently react to what he is being said is not dependent on he actually reacting, but in him being able to act like he is doing so. This is different from the gollum situation, though, Andi Serkis was present bc Peter Jackson wanted to makes the scenes feel as real as possible, and that meant haing an actor physically acting with the other actors, as well as the environment. You can also see Gollum acting against himself, all alone, in one of the greatest acting performances in the whole LOTR trilogy
Well this is the real question of acting, the question of classical acting/the Stanislavski Method vs. reactive dramatic acting. I think it really depends on the actor to find what works for them, but throughout history, the monologue has been thought of as the ultimate test of an actor's skill.
-facepalm- i'm not even going to try to sum up all of my response to this into a reasonable qoute. Instead i'll just point out and respond to some of the main things glaring at me while i read your response
Assuming things about me that i have already stated is not the way i view things on multiple occasions
Ignoring the official statement about a whole new 'cast' of Transformers and humans (with Optimus and Bumblebee returning... but with NEW MODES - new CGI models)
All your points about Gollum are talking about the ACTOR not the CGI (which i was talking about)
Pointing out film facts that are completely irrelevant when discussing a response to statements about CGI monsters visual appearance and reaction to their visual appearance in the same camera shot
Once again... Gollum acting against himself is due to the ACTOR portraying the character that way. He is not observing and reacting to an imaginary creature, he is the imaginary creature
Comparing Peter Jackson to Michael Bay...
Reacting to an actor is different to reacting to a monster
All the problems you listed for the first movie are exactly the same for the fourth movie of this franchise. You need to understand that -_-
New human cast
New robot cast
New plotline/script to entice new reader
Limited on locations due to having to introduce new characters
Good point... but a monologue is a character talking about themselves... essentially Gollum (as i've already stated) this is essentially an actor talking about himself. Mono is only one character and does nto apply to any scene in Transformers other than small self-reasurance quips passed during the first film.
Which was not the point of what i was writing. What i was describing is referred to as a 'scene' which consists of 2 or more actors interacting - or in this case one actor reacting to the pressence of a giant robot and lines read off screen.
There are monologues and one-man shows where a single actor talks to imaginary figures on stage, as well. It's not just soliloquies.
Jesus Christmas why is this thread still going?????? Its not even on topic.
I think that's part of what makes the films so disappointing. If everything was bad and everything was a horrible idea you could just chalk it all up to one of the Transformers experiments that just didn't work.
But the movies do manage some good ideas and they do pull off some really good scenes so at least for a little while you get to see that the films could be so much more than what we get with the over all film. It's like they catch on to some great idea that might take the film into the realm of a sci-fi epic but then they have to throw in some poor taste humor or one of less interesting characters to pad out the running length of the movie or something.
And again, you seem to not be able to grasp what I'm saying, or plainly ignore some of my points... I said new special FX, not new robot models. Much of the effects used in movie 1 were new at the time,they needed new modeling tools. These tools can be reused, therefore costing less development time and money. Many of the problems you mention with movie 4 are true, except that they don't need to develop new, non existing software tools. Basically, they know their trade by now, and they will be more effective, therefore, more cost effective. Also, new cast has nothing to do with budget, since if they had the old cast back, they would have to pay them anyway, they would need a new script anyway, and they would need new locations anyway. And I keep getting the feeling (sorry if I'm assuming to much) that you base all your points on greater budget being directly responsible for greater quality, and vice versa, when I, and many others, gave sound reasons for this not to be exactly true..
As for Gollum, what you said was that the actors were, in many scenes, acting against a ball on a stick, and I said that is not true, they had the actor present as a reference the whole time, many times dressed in a full Gollum suit (the Gimp suit, as actor Andy Serkis jokingly refered to it). And Gollum acting against himself, exactly bc it's just an actor imagining, with no real monster there, is evidence of how a great actor needs nothing but his imagination.
Also, you ignored the part where I mentioned some of the greatest acting performances in movie history. I meant dialogues, where both the actors are not even present at the same time. These are not monologues.
And I will stress this again: A great actor acts. He doesn't react.
It comes down to the actor's skill at acting against his imagination, and a great director to direct his actors into doing what he needs for the scene. With both, you don't really need the monster to be there, just tell your actor "It's big and ugly and scary", and the actor does the rest. He doesn't need to know exactly what he's seeing, he just has to act his response.
Answered your own question there.
*hops in your boat*
ya man I am with you on this. that 80s cartoon gave us what we have today. and the word HOMAGE is synonymous with G1. Nothing on the movies I am afraid.
I hate all the movies, but the toys were O-K. Not great, just O-K. My biggest disappointment is Devastator. I mean, the supreme version cant even form the robots for each limb. and he looks like a chuck of vehicles lumped over.
Separate names with a comma.