|
Post by Raggletag on Sept 14, 2006 11:33:33 GMT -5
yeah alts had really realistic trasformations, with the big hollow spots and the complete lack of realistic mobility. it looks like when these transform the "shell" splits into alot of pieces, because if the shell stayed in big solid chunkc the robots couldnt move fluidly I can guarantee these won't be "100% realistic transformations", because you won't see the lines for all those thousands of pieces when the characters are in vehicle mode. Let's just face facts that no design will be totally realistic in live-action. It's called "suspension of disbelief". I'm getting tired of hearing how oh-so-horrible the original TF designs would look in live-action. I've seen several CGI fan vids that prove otherwise. They'd just need to rework the jointed areas to make them look more complex and maneuverable. And how can you say the Alternators lack realistic mobility?? The legs on most of them have near 100% range, the hips swivel, and the heads turn and pivot. The only limitation I see on many of them is the upper arm/shoulder poseability being somewhat lacking. But how can you tell the movie designs will be any better?
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 14, 2006 12:03:55 GMT -5
I admit I was, and still am, a bit skeptical about some of the designs, but bumblebee and prime are really growing on me and give me hope that this movie might actually be half-decent. See, I think this is what Bay and company are going for. They are hoping by leaking all these images that by the time the movie comes around that the fandom will have excepted these hack designs and give in. By that point the fandom will be like well it's all we are going to get so lets just be happy with it. That's what I believe the plot againt the fans is. It's a conspiracy I tells ya! For me, the fact that the movie designs are so different just took me by surprise a bit; I knew they'd be different, but I wasn't expecting what we got w/ megatron and blackout. Megatron is still a bit iffy imo, but blackout looks great, as does prime. I don't know if they're 100% realistic, but they are more realistic than anything we've seen previously.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 14, 2006 17:49:03 GMT -5
I can say alts lack realistic mobility with confidence, thats how. I'm not looking at them from a toy viewpoint, but a bipedal humanoid viewpoint. we cant have the transformers on the big screen looking like big blocky toys, rework the joints or not, the hoods, doors, windshields blah blah blah, would be major major hindrances
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 14, 2006 18:19:14 GMT -5
But if you start trying to make them look more humanoid in robot mode, you lose a lot of the uniqueness that gives them that Transformers feel, you know?
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 14, 2006 18:50:15 GMT -5
eh i can see what your saying ck, but for me it dosnt loose it
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 14, 2006 19:45:52 GMT -5
Gotcha. The more I think about it, the more I am kinda like ".......can we see it in motion?"
|
|
|
Post by Raggletag on Sept 14, 2006 20:14:12 GMT -5
I can say alts lack realistic mobility with confidence, thats how. I'm not looking at them from a toy viewpoint, but a bipedal humanoid viewpoint. we cant have the transformers on the big screen looking like big blocky toys, rework the joints or not, the hoods, doors, windshields blah blah blah, would be major major hindrances Your Alternators statement doesn't make much sense. Basically you're saying they lack mobility because you say so, without any real reasons. Oh well, skip it. Those bits showing (windshields, doors, front hoods, etc) are what make the TFs stand out from other robots out there. It's their shtick. And why must they look as humanoid as possible? They're alien robots, right? Guess it's just another aesthetics thing.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 14, 2006 21:41:26 GMT -5
Eh sorry about my unclear statments raggle. what i mean is that bending 90 degrees at joints and swivling at the hip is not realistic for combat oriented robots. and the reason they must have realistic motion in the movie to feel real is that they arnt just alien robots, they are living beings, metal or not. thus to function in an enviroment at a reasonable pace they must have fluid organic movment, otherwise as i said they are just big toys. and i always thought transformers stchik was that they ....um....transformed lol, i dont believe they need all the "kibble" to be recognized as transformers
|
|
|
Post by Raggletag on Sept 14, 2006 23:00:31 GMT -5
I'm not big on kibble hanging off of the toys/characters either, with the exception of maybe doors or jet wings. But I do like to see bits of the vehicle mode worked into the robot mode, like the car hoods on the chest, the rear of the car showing in the feet, the jet cockpit on the chest, etc.. Makes for an interesting look, imo. But again it's all aesthetics, so it's hard to begrudge someone for prefering one style over another. I do think however that they could theoretically tweak an Alternator design for the movie. Make it more complex and "bulletproof" the hollow areas. I don't think the movie characters have to be all joints and wires on the inner sections of their robot modes to look realistic.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 14, 2006 23:01:08 GMT -5
I suppose it has to do with where you draw the line for make-believe. Certain things have to be accepted -
1: giant, living robots exist 2: they can move about freely despite having doors, etc...hanging off their bodies.
So this is basically the discussion of if number 2 is acceptable or not.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 15, 2006 7:42:47 GMT -5
good way to put it ck. I believe that in a live action movie you must make things as believable as possible, but i can see how you guys may view it differently. to each there own
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Sept 15, 2006 18:52:25 GMT -5
I believe that in a live action movie you must make things as believable as possible If I may point out a few examples: - Episode 1 - Battlefield: Earth - Howard the Duck - Super Mario Brothers
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 15, 2006 20:11:57 GMT -5
I believe that in a live action movie you must make things as believable as possible If I may point out a few examples: - Episode 1 - Battlefield: Earth - Howard the Duck - Super Mario Brothers True, but then, some movies just shouldn't be live action. That smb movie still annoys me; should've been a toon.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 15, 2006 20:22:24 GMT -5
there is a catch with your examples jo, they all suck lol. or atleast in my opinion they do, oh ill watch ema nd they are campy and fun but really they are bad movies. yet another example to go realism
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 15, 2006 23:32:59 GMT -5
I think that was basically Jo's point - movies that shoot for realism among things that are unrealistic tend to suck.
Speaking of SMB - I believe they are planning on making another movie. It'll be interesting to see since we have been out of "campy mainstream movie" mode for quite a while now. Not to say that there aren't campy movies anymore - but you gotta admit that quite a few of them were released in the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Sept 16, 2006 9:53:47 GMT -5
That's almost it. My intent was to show examples of movies with a "realistic" premise have many ways to go wrong still (didn't have much time to write the first one). Realism isn't a guarrantee of either quality or success.
- Episode 1 - How the heck does the trade embargo of a minor planet become the centerpoint for galatic politics?
- Battlefield: Earth - (Note: Haven't seen it myself, going off of friends who have seen it) How do old, pre-jet age planes manage to fight equally with alien space fighters?
- Howard the Duck - One of the worst rubber suits ever.
- Super Mario Brothers - "Realistic" to the point that left me wondering, "Is any of this movie other than the character names ever going to tie in to the game?"
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 16, 2006 10:42:45 GMT -5
i dont know about you but to me it dosnt seem that any of these were really shotting for realism, except maybe battlefield. and if they were they made some major mistake like you said and i hope the transformers movie dosnt make mistake similar to them, like making it too G1
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 16, 2006 15:54:49 GMT -5
The more G1 they make it, the more successful it will be.
The G1 crowd is in the thick of the "money spending" age. Hence - the reason that G1 toys can be so popular as well as cost so much. The toys wouldn't go for so much if people weren't interested.
This is a smaller scale of the total crowd of people out there who saw the original cartoon. The smaller sample being the people who are still fans of the toys and want to collect them. If any random person out there - non-toy collector and not a "Transformer fan of today" - knows something about Transformers, they are most likely going to know something about G1.
They could totally make the cartoon into a movie, and it would work. (We have had that discussion before) They aren't going to do it, but they are going to borrow a LOT from G1.
I believe that the movie would be incredibly successful if it were pure G1 - I would actually bet you money on it.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 16, 2006 17:37:09 GMT -5
The more G1 they make it, the more successful it will be. The G1 crowd is in the thick of the "money spending" age. Hence - the reason that G1 toys can be so popular as well as cost so much. The toys wouldn't go for so much if people weren't interested. This is a smaller scale of the total crowd of people out there who saw the original cartoon. The smaller sample being the people who are still fans of the toys and want to collect them. If any random person out there - non-toy collector and not a "Transformer fan of today" - knows something about Transformers, they are most likely going to know something about G1. They could totally make the cartoon into a movie, and it would work. (We have had that discussion before) They aren't going to do it, but they are going to borrow a LOT from G1. I believe that the movie would be incredibly successful if it were pure G1 - I would actually bet you money on it. And who was it that was complaining we need something new bc we've been g1'ed to death? I realize that's not your point; adults, if they've seen any tf cartoon, have probably seen g1. I don't know if it would be more successful simply bc it would be g1 however..kids haven't seen g1 (and they're a huge part of the target audience, especially for the toys) and there are pleny of 20-somethings who have seen only bw and bm (and isn't that an important demographic for movie makers, the 18-25 year olds?). And about the g1 toys; if they're so popular, why did the tru reissue line bomb? They were expensive, but not bc they were popular, which is one reason the line didn't thrive. I honestly think that if people like the bots and/or the direction of the story, they'll say, "Ohh, transformers!", and might be convinced to go see it, no matter how g1-esque it really is. People have a way of remembering, but not remembering the details; I think many of us have met people like that.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 16, 2006 18:04:24 GMT -5
And who was it that was complaining we need something new bc we've been g1'ed to death? I'm not sure....you? Me? I want a new cartoon that doesn't leech off G1 like all the other ones. But we aren't talking about the cartoon. For the cartoon and toys, yes. They are the target audience. For a movie like this one, the violence content isn't going to be meant for an eight-year-old. It's going to be meant for adults. 2006-20 = 1986. So when they were 5 years old, they would have been watching G2-era reruns (don't think many watched though) and they would have been around 10 in 1996 and starting to outgrow toys when Beast Wars aired. So your 20+ audience is probably going to be more familiar with G1. Plus, Beast Wars (regardless of how good the cartoon was) wasn't nearly as popular as G1. Irrelevant. 1st - Look at me. I hate reissues. I like G1. 2nd - You didn't read my post. Notice I said that I said This negated toy sales as something to base popularity off of. I used the original toy sales to show that the kids from the 80s have the money to spend on G1 - not to prove if it was popular or not. Yeah I agree - but word of mouth is also important when building viewers after a first weekend. I don't want the initial crowd to go see it and tell everyone "Ehhh I dunno. It was kinda weird." I would prefer a "yeah! They had the big volcano and the red truck...." etc... How many people - regardless of if they were only semi-interested in G1 or simply had a brother that watched it can manage to sing some or parts of the original cartoon's theme song. G1 is embedded in pop culture. The other incarnations are not - or at least are not as embedded as G1.
|
|