Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Insane Galvatron, Apr 8, 2007.
They would've looked more G1.
That would've made the movie seem extremely outdated, before it even had the chance to come out! Have a little more faith in these guys, you may not like 'em, but they know what they're doing.
it would have been too intense and visually incredible. people's heads would have exploded. we wont be ready for FX like that for twenty years at least. too good.
Oh man I loved Robot Jox. Used to rent it from the video club every weekend back in the day. It's actually the reason I have the nick that I do.
um... yea... and we can all see how realistic that looks
Hehe, I love that movie.
I am now a little more accepting of the FX that they are using for the new movie. Go figure.
The reason G1 designs don't cut it...
You are jokeing....right?.........
If your that intense on G1 effects there is a video on you tube that is live action of a guy next to a car that transforms into (I believe ) Sideswipe..It looks just like him..but it is also a good example of why the G1 style should not be used in the movie...
Here is the link...
You guys actually think he's being serious? I thought the smiley gave it away, besides how ridiculous it sounds. Some people need to learn about sarcasm and humor.
People with a sense of humor in the movie forums? Wishful thinking.
pity it wasn't the scene with the robo chainsaw wang
Nope...I really didn't pay attention to the smiley..and yes, while it sounds ridiculous..it is no more ridiculous than the heards of fanboys whining about the designs and why they aren't G1. IT is also no more ridiculous than...stifle...I don't want to get banned....
Man, what are you talkin' about? Didnt you guys know? That's preview footage for the "Headmasters" sequel....
Here's my submission what should have been...
Thanks to Corey Bauer's once great sig
The special effects in ROBOT JOX were only matched by Paul Koslo's great acting (see XTRO 2 for more of his powerhouse performances!).
TRANSFORMERS could only benefit from both this and the cutting edge CGI (Cardboard Generated Images) that earlier film contained.
Are they-- are they doing the Macarena?!
I kinda dug the two Robo Jox. Didn't make any sense from top to bottom, but that's not why I enjoyed them
So did I - The first movie was actually one of the first VHS tapes I bought (way, waaay back!). But, like ROLLERBALL, the fights themselves are the best thing about it and highlight how boring the rest of the movie is - If the bounce-ups had been longer, it would have been a classic!!
I just had this on Netflix last week! LOL!
Saying that ILM would render things exactly like Saban would Power Rangers, how Robo Jox was animated or even how that fanmade clip worked is complete and utter bullox.
It's like saying the RiD designs as in the Car Robots opening below
Couldn't look better in ILM CGI. And yes, they use more organic looking designs.
The problem lies not in the concept or the aesthetics, other than that it's not fully fleshed out and executed rather poorly in comparison with what could be done. It's like saying todays robotshows aren't being portrayed better than 60s robotshows because it's about robots. Plain bullox. A Gundam animation today looks twenty times better than a Gundam animation 20 years ago, yet the general concept and aesthetics are the exact same. In the case of Robo Jox, we're talking about SEVENTEEN year old life action animation! SEVENTEEN YEARS! (A movie which btw, was nominated as best fantasy movie of 1990, yes I had to look it up on Wikipedia since I never heard of the show, I was 6 at the time. ).
I hope some people here recognise the difference between the setpieces and CGI of a Bond Movie made in 60s, 80s, 90s and even the differences in the period 2000-2007! If a 1960 movie was any indication on how a Bond movie in 2006 would look like, there never would have been a 2006 Bond movie! BUT NO, PEOPLE IN THIS VERY THREAD MAKE THE SAME COMPARISON OVER AND OVER AND OVER (just in relation to robots). And think it actually has any truth to it! *sigh*
It's like saying the new Star Wars movies (that were deliberately attempted to be similar in looks to the old ones) didn't and couldn't benefit visually from new CGI! All that is completely irrelevant to the plot or the execution of the plot by the actors, yet for some reason that same connection is continuously made by movie fanboys. (By the way, the plot, CGI and acting are incredibly crappy with say Power Rangers, so even comparing to it makes your argument compared to an execution of a TF Movie with a 150 million budget very weak).
You know what the problem is? With a lot of movie fanboy people? Let's see. First of, they can't differentiate how two companies would render two things in CGI by looking at the available:
2. State of Technology
3. Invested time into a model
4. Experience of the team
5. Intention and quality demands of the CGI (meant for animation or life-action?)
This is examplified by the Power Rangers comparison where you have plastic looking robots (poor texturing and rendering) combine, or are even literally a man in a plastic suit. It's a laughable argument and a very poor comparison. Saban is a bunch of failed amateur wannabees compared to ILM. No doubt about that. Same can be said for Saban's cartoons btw.
Next to that, the majority of movie fanboys absolutely has no idea what is meant when someone says "it would have been better when it had been closer to the originals", nor is able to respect that point of view. Why? Because they think it's a 100% G1 or whatever demand. Luckily not everyone. But unfortunately, the majority of the people can't differentiate the critic from a Geewunner, nor fact from fiction or opinion. Especially when they're quoting people like the movie officials. When they say something, it's not necessarily a fact. They are biased and have a direct interest in saying this is going to be the best thing ever since cheese. Of course they'll want to discourage the idea that there may have been better or even other options. In fact, they do it all the time, often without a real argumentation. And people eat those quotes like candy and use it as "evidence" to "silence" critics (or stooges or whatever).
I wish there were more people on fora like these that would understand a nuanciation, intention of a post or something along those lines, are able to read between the lines and pick up the intended message, not go by prejudices and all that, but unfortunately, that's not always the case.
If anyone thinks ILM would produce a rather stuttering, low budget, low detail, half arsed animation like Robo Jox on screen like, those people would be insane. ILM would take those Robo Jox designs and could easily use their budget and experience to upgrade those designs without having to change much on the overall appearance. Those same people however, will somehow read and twist the previous sentence to mean that this is a sign of a 'Geewunner' that actually wants that. It's not. It's a hypothesis for arguments sake.
What you'd get (even if you'd do a direct port of G1 toys, which would be foolish and is not something anyone asks for, not even 'Geewunners'), is something along the lines of Robo Jox, but worked out in more detail. You don't really think Power Rangers with its low budget and 80s standard visual effects could be a match for this movie's capabilities in any way? If you do, I'm sorry, but you must then be either mad or very ignorant (or deliberately in denial?). You think a $500.000 budget is spend on just a few boxes that look like plastic and explosions that look like welding sparks? Haha. No. In fact. People that think that 'Geewunners' or other critics want boxes and cartoon accurate stuff are already misguided.
What a lot of people want, is to actually being able to recognise a character right of the bat. This means they want certain features that the original characters had, to be easily identifiable on their movie counterpart or namesake. They want upgrades. Not replacements by what they consider ugly and generic robots that happen to transform.
Characterisation alone, though essential, is not enough, because if it was, then you could have a white hillbilly dress up in a Chicago Bulls shirt that says Jordan and have him voiced remarkably well with speechpatterns and tone and what not. But we all know that actor would never be able to be or represent 'Micheal Jordan', for aesthetics reasons: he's not black, he's not tall, he doesn't have the face, etc. Similarly, putting a guy in a Ferrari suit doesn't make him Micheal Schumacher. Nor would any good racer be identified as Schumacher, if he didn't look a lot more like him. You'd have to do more in more facets. The movie guys when dealing with TFs only did the transforming bit for several characters, while not being able to remind in any other way. That is a sign of weak design, which by the way is not a sign of weak CGI, or that CGI of another format would look worse. Which is also something a lot of movie fanboys somehow can't imagine: something else looking as good (if not better or more functional for the job of being a movie about Transformers).
In other words, making a robot transform is not enough to identify that robot. An example of this is easily made. Goryu is a repaint of Dai Atlas, yet they're completely different characters, one is even piloted. To be Dai Atlas or at least being able to pass as Dai Atlas, you'd need more features that are the same. Likewise, Excillion isn't able to pass as Hot Rod, despite having the proper tools, altmode and all. The colourscheme alone makes it a different character. Just think of the seekers! We identify them as individuals (having the same design) through colorschemes AND their altmode type (with associated robotmode).
What a lot of fans want, is to at least be able to identify robots by say their colourscheme. Take Bumblebee and Prime who are identifiable that way. Prime has a faceplate thingy (that's still rather poorly executed, but it's something). Jazz, Ratchet, Ironhide, Megatron, Starscream and any of the randoms are not. So what you need, is both the characterisation and multiple recognisable features. Starscream being a random jet with a random paintscheme is not enough. You can easily compromise on the colorscheme or something like the head or chest design that indicates a certain character by using known features. That isn't hard to do at all despite what some people say.
It however, doesn't mean the paintscheme HAS to be exactly the same, but it should work in the same manner. Take Alternators. All of those robots were easily identifiable by head and other features, if not by colourscheme. THAT is what a lot of people want and it's not hard to do.
And no, you do not even require humanoid faces for that. In fact, in the odd and unlikely case you wanted to, you could even make your movie selections on what former characters didn't have human faces. However, using faces everyone knows (after using alien faces) would greatly add to the recognisability and 'authority' of the characters for using a specific name.
All of this has nothing to do with whether or not Hasbro approved it or not. They are responsible for G2 colourschemes *shudder* as well as other things (Beast Machines? Ew.) afterall. Besides, what 'officially' is labeled TF isn't persé a good choice or free from critique. I can hear the people protest now and wanting to point out G1 wasn't perfect either. Note the word either. As if I didn't know that or didn't recognise that. But even if I say this it'll be ignored, for it's already determined you must be a Geewunner: you're not following the main stream of the movie forum afterall. :/
But this is especially not the case if it will have so much impact like a movie (which to the general audience should 'define' and represent TFs), if it redefines characters that have already been well established and are well known by the general public. A change to those characters is of course possible. Very possible. However. Those should mostly be necessity changes. Going from a F-15 to a F-22 is perfectly acceptable as the F-22 is a superior dogfighter, not as good as a Sukhoi Flanker, but meh, it has stealth instead. You don't however, need to change the general robotmode look into a gorrilla. Quite the contrary. If people want to say the G1 Masterpiece lacks articulation, you think there's much difference with the movie version if you'd adjust the panelling of the Masterpiece to allow for stuff it can't do as a toy? Of course not. For a F-15, the Masterpiece would have worked, but you can easily make a F-22 Raptor look similar in design. Just look at Energon Starscream (which is more Starcream than the movie one will ever be, simply because it actually looks like him, yet has different shoulders, legs, wings and everything). It's therefore ridiculous to say it has to look like a gorrilla and there wouldn't be a better option. Even if you wanted to cut it into more shards of plating like most movie designs, even then could you create a more appealing design to fans.
They deliberately opted not to, because they wanted to have full artistic freedom with the characters. But that's not the reason they gave for it, they said "It can't be done" and that opinion still echo's in this thread and even more in this forum. Reminds me of parrots, parrots also don't check their facts (or in this case, very extensively) when they quote someone. If you feel that's an insult, don't take it personal, because everyone does the parroty thing all the time in all sorts of situations, it's a human trait to mimmick and share opinions based on someone elses word afterall. (Heck, whole sekts/religions can be built on it).
However, it's unfortunate that a lot of movie fanboys will not allow such opinions to exist in their "I've already accepted these changes and so should everyone else" world. People should accept that fanboys on both sides have their opinion and that there are even people who are in between or coming from whole different angles.
Believe it or not, like me. I just happen to come from an angle that allows from compromises with fanboys as well as movie people (where it comes to realism). However, people that use even one bit of fanboy compromises or critique that the movie went too far away for their own good, are immediately dubbed Geewunners and thus irratic by these people (even if you say direct G1 ports would be completely unacceptable and want as many realistic engineering solutions as possible).
I just find it repulsive that a lot of people twist the words and misinterpret (often my words and often on purpose) when they quote people, with the sole intention of mocking someone elses opinion and feel their own opinion is 'superior' without even understanding it (or in some cases, realising they're doing that). I especially (like you may have noticed many times over) dislike the general attitude of people that say you're a Geewunner, based on you giving some examples of things that do not necessarily require change, while taking some elements from a series like G1 (being the first series) as an example of how things could be done. Especially if they take it as saying it should be done as such and that you also include all the other aspects of such series or designs.
Anyone recognise the fanboy people that say critics want stumpy legs and blocks and morphing and other such weird conclusions, and then ridicule them over something they never said in the first place? Yeah, I thought so.
PS: Bet I get flak for this again as I apparently insulted some random person (over the interweb!) who can't take (harsh) critique or feels offended when a generalised stereotype is thrown up as he believes he's not part of that generalisation (which means you're not meant perhaps?); without first seeing if there's even a little bit of truth in it or if it even applies... Especially to those persons that feel insulted and will thus demand excuses by any form of generalisation in an essay long text on the internet... Please grow up, a post posted in frustration will always contain some sarcasm which isn't always to be taken as a sign of disrespect or insult.
Also, to those that didn't read it all due to limited attention span, didn't bother to try to understand it and kept an unbiased view, couldn't get over the bits that weren't completely nuanciated and took offense for it (for some odd reason), or something in that trend, yet STILL manage to have an extensive, ignorant opinion... Get a better quality of life. As I'm sure you already have some sort of life.
If you feel this disclaimer is offensive, just 'lol'. Just try to think on how bad it is a disclaimer like this is even needed these days, because someone vents a bit and critiques other people, or a movie, in harsh terms now and then. The irony.
Unnecessary - TFW Staff
Separate names with a comma.