Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Livingdeaddan, May 2, 2011.
..turn into vehicles with such loverly shiney paintjobs??
(not that it really matters )
temporary small scale nanorepairs .. something to do with more resources available to that effect due to less movng parts. I remember somebody saying this. Wasn't me.
The magic of CGI : P
visual sleight of hand. Really anything that makes them look more realistic helps... though sometimes I think they overdo it a bit with the scuffs and scrapes. I suppose it's more important that things be believable that strictly realistic. They're trying to sell the audience on the reality of that robot, and maybe things just looked a little plastic without the scratches.
The other reason is that they're trying to advertise the cars.
I'm sure someone is capable of coming up with some far-fetched rationalisation for how it might work, but it's probably best to look past stuff like that.
I always thought that when the transformed back into their car mode they went back into what shape the original car they scanned when they came to earth, and their robot mode was what got damaged. I could be wrong.
i gotta argue against that last statement. movies, moreso when steven spielberg is involved, are alot about escapism, getting engrossed in the subject matter, movie magic and then while engrossed in the film drawn whatever meaning comes to you. i dont think u can just say its 'best to look past that stuff', when its obviously been someone's attempt to make the movie watching experience more enjoyable, even if that was never really the filmmakers consideration. Take the movie comics for example, dont they add something to the story, yet you can say someone elses attempt at doing the same is invalid.
Sure you dont agree with me, and sure you value your own opinion, you cant say its best. I wouldnt pay 20 bucks to watch a car commercial.
ILM bods mentioned during production on the first movie that the robots weren't as convincing without some dirtying up. Personally I'd agree that it seems to have swung vastly too far in that direction. If you look at any still images it begins to look preposterous. Obviously on the big screen stuff is moving about so it's less of an issue.
Incidentally I read in an FX magazine that when the animators came to do ROTF they discovered that whole bits of Optimus Primes underarms had literally not been painted. They just hadn't appeared in shot and remained unfinished!!!!
Filmmakers (when they are working at best) try to come up with rational and context based explanations for things that occur in their movies- particularly if its needed to keep the internal logic working and the audience gripped. If they can get by without it they will.
Sometimes (as in this case) an explanation isn't required because it's down to factors involved in making the film and not it's content. Plus most people don't notice the disparity between the two modes.
Fanboys make up endless varying and frequently wild 'explanations' as to why things happen ( and why plot holes are not plot holes) for their own amusement and then claim they are as valid as anything in the fiction - cheerfully ignoring any kind on consensus opinion.
It's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern syndrome.
I may be wrong, but surely if the robots were all shiny then ILM would have to work extra hard. I mean they'll have to match the lighting from different environments for every robot, during every second.
And so if the robots reflected less light then it would be a faster process for them tideous renders.
I dig the scratches though, It them look as if these bots take good hits.
But yeah, it may bother some people.
I'm afraid you're wrong. The untarnished 'bots simply looked too perfect and thus not real (they still reflect plenty!). This isn't so much of an issue for the cars because we (the human brain) already recognise them as real objects.
I think you might have a point here. I mean I know the robots still reflect tons of lighting, but it would be heavier if it was like all over.
If Bumblebee for example was as new looking as that Camaro, I guess yeah, it would look flawless.
Then again maybe those scuff marks are supposedly from old battles, like worn out body armor, because cars are outer covering that they put on.
It's easy, the Autobots don't want to get the GM reps angry, so they use their Cybertron technology to make themselves presentable when they transform into "car commercial" mode.
Car companies hate it when their vehicles are shown with scratches, dents or any other damage...
I remember when videogames like Gran Turismo wanted to have damage effects added to the vehicles, and a lot of car companies threatened to pull their licensing agreement if they went through with it.
A wizard did it.
I got his idea from a fellow board member:
Vehicle mode- Cybertron cloaking on
Robot mode- Cybertron cloaking off
It's worked pretty well so far.
Nano-surface repairs as someone else has said, or even holography to maintain the disguise and hide any distinguishing marks. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways it could easily be done by beings that advanced.
Technical reasons, mostly. "Clean" robots are too obviously fake. They need to be "dirty" so they look real.
Separate names with a comma.