Rottenwatch: TRANSFORMERS Revenge of the Fallen
- Thread starter DevelopmentArrested
- Start date
- Status
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
You could never tell on GAF when it comes to gaming. ;Pindustrian said:
Have to say I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
I can't understand how anyone can complain about the CG though - it was stunning. The modelling and animation are insane. ILM brought their A team to this, and I hope they get a raise. My only complaint was a tad too much motion blur.
I can't understand how anyone can complain about the CG though - it was stunning. The modelling and animation are insane. ILM brought their A team to this, and I hope they get a raise. My only complaint was a tad too much motion blur.
Count Dookkake
Member
Sapiens said:
fixed
BrLvgThrChmstry
Banned
I guess I'll check it out tonight at the mall of Georgia IMAX... That's if I manage to get a ticket. It looks like a dumb, fun summer flick.
In regards to CG, this seems like a silly response. Nobody's doubting the manpower and skill that goes into it; rather, people are speaking about the end result of it. You don't need to be a graphic designer to notice bad CG just like you don't need to be a virtuoso musician to recognize a crappy violinist. I won't speak to the CG in Transformers 2 since, well, I haven't seen it (and actually assume it will be excellent because the first one looked pretty great).Opus Angelorum said:
There are plenty of instances of movies with CG that's so jarring that it takes the viewer out of the movie (see: Titanic's iceberg, the Matrix sequel's Smiths/Twins, etc.).
Fixed.Outcast2004 said:
Not picking on you in particular, just those that stick to their piss poor nostalgia of a crappy kids cartoon).
typhonsentra
Banned
I just don't get why they spent so much time with the humans in the first movie and now they're apparently pushing it even harder? Aside from people wanting to look at Fox why the fuck would they do this? It's a movie about giant killer robots, humans should be relegated to being crushed or futilely trying to oppose the Decepticons.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Littleberu said:
i don't consider myself a huge fan of the franchise, but when my mate got preview tickets to TF2 we were seriously hyped for it. the trailers looked fantastic, and i'm a sucker for big action movies.
it's as bad as the reviews are making out. needlessly violent, full of annoying, juvenile characters that made no sense and added nothing to the story, and just EMPTY. there's nothing to it. michael bay is a complete hack. so much budget , talent, effects and its all for nothing because it's just a throwaway pointless mess.
people defending it are like 'what did you expect, high art?' - i went in expecting an exciting movie. what i got was 2.5 hours of CG excess and unconvincing, annoying characters. these are fucking trasnforming robots! where is the invention or excitement? the moments that make you go 'wow that was fucking awesome!' they didn't even use the transforming sound effect
what annoyed me the most about it was that in the hands of a better, more subtle director it could have been a really cool movie instead of the mean spirited explosionfest that Bay churned out.
god, i've posted about this movie like 4 times. it musta really pissed me off :lol
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
He usually waits for 50 reviews to come in before he posts his contrarian shit review.DMczaf said:
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
StrikerObi said:
Yep. It's like Terminator Salvation, only this is uselessly long and has Bay explosions. No wonder McG was comparing his movie to this :lol :lol
Expendable.
Member
Hey guys, check out this interview we did. Went pretty well!
[Exclusive Interview] Scott Farrar (SFX Supervisor + 2nd Unit Director)
[url=http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/scottfarrar.jpg]
[/URL]
A few days ago I was lucky enough to be able to do an on-phone interview with Scott Farrar the special effects supervisor and second unit director on Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen. You may not recognized Scott by name, but you have surely seen his work. Scott's masterful resumé includes Star Wars VI- Return of The Jedi, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, Artificial Intelligence: AI, and many other classic films. His work on both the Transformer films are ground breaking achievements in special effects.
Hows it going Scott? Big fan by the way.
Scott Farrar: Very well, thank you.
Was it a challenge getting all the effects done in a two year span and how much time did you have to work on the first film?
Scott Farrar: Well on the first film, actually each film took about a year and a half. We start with the script and then we start breaking it down to figure out how many shots and how much work is going to be involved. So after reading the script we realize, "Oh my gosh there are forty to six new characters!", and they have major speaking roles and they have to act a lot better then they did in the first one. So right away you see some pretty daunting challenges.
So how do you make sure all the robots are different and unique in their own way? So when they are battling the audience can tell the difference between an autobot and a decepticon.
Scott Farrar: Well we know that in the first movie some of the characters were a little bit confusing because some of their colors looked similar. So that was a big note from fans and audiences. So we tried very hard to make sure we had colors and shapes that were a little easier to tell apart. So we try to make sure the fallen standout and hopefully the voice actors help the audience recognize some of the characters. Its pretty easy for us to keep track of the characters because each one has a name so right away we start calling them by their name when watching dailies. So we can recognize that buffoon Starscream kissing up to Megatron! (Laughs)
How long generally does it take to model each robot and which one took the most time?
Scott Farrar: Devastator without a doubt took the longest to model. He is goliath in proportion; he is one hundred and fifty feet tall compared to poor little Optimus who is only twenty five feet tall. Megatron is also around thirty-two feet. So he's composed of a thousand parts and he has like eight different gigantic road grating dirt movers, so he is huge and complex. For a simple model character it would take about twelve weeks to model. That means just making all the shapes and putting them together to spin around to look at it. He doesn't move yet at that point and he has some rough paint on him or he may just be plastic grey shapes. Then the rigor goes in for about fifteen weeks rigging all the pieces together showing it as a skeleton frame so it can move around on the computer without all the pieces falling off. Then your kind of ready for shop production. You start with the paint and textures then you assign materials. We have a whole materials list thats been developed using shades and software technology to assign each coding color or texture. Then your talking about twenty plus weeks until you can put a character into production and for Devastator we divided up in teams to build his various parts so then he could be combined together as one. Hes just painful from the stand point of rendering. It would take like forty five minutes just to load him up on a screen just to look at him for one snap shot frame. Then it took seventy-two hours to a render a frame with him. (Sigh) It was on a new level of difficulty. Another interesting thing is that we used twenty terabytes disc space for memory for the first film and here its one-hundred and forty terabytes
Now is that number the final composition?
Scott Farrar: Yeah that number is everything with all things considered.
Whats the big difference between rendering an IMAX shot?
Scott Farrar: Yes, probably the easiest way to describe it is to talk about an anamorphic film frame. While a film frame is just a thirty-five millimeter frame just like in a still camera, its the same size. An IMAX frame is on seventy-millimeter film so its eight times larger. So if you want to have same fine grain, which you do, you got to have eight times the information and space to render that shot. So that gives you an idea and then suddenly everything is at a much higher level to produce the IMAX sections of the film.
I dont know if this is true, but I heard that some effects were recycled from the first film into the end battle. Is that correct?
Scott Farrar: (pause) Um, you know I just saw it last night and I noticed a couple of shots Michael used for the first show. I dont really have a good answer for that, but I know I noticed a couple shots that were used that didnt need to be redone. It was something to do with military [scenes].
How long did it take to complete Devastator?
Scott Farrar: Oh gosh (laughs), Devastator was kind of in process for about eight months. It is not just that because its a complicated question. You know we build one of the dirt movers and then we work out what the transformation part might be and also how the pieces get plugged together. Then you find out something doesnt work so you have to go back and redo something. Then the camera changes and then you got to change the way the animation originally was.
Dont you ever miss model making and crafting miniatures?
Scott Farrar: Well we actually still do that quite often, we shot a number of miniatures for this film. When the aircraft carrier gets hit we shot a lot of first scale flame elements. Also when Wheel-Bot is crushing through the free way we built a miniature free way and broke that apart. The Egyptian pillars that were Karnacks temple we had to break apart so we also used miniatures there. Also for lots and lots of dirt hits for the forest fight. So we still do as much as we can, but were at a strange point in cinematic terms where the simulations are getting much better. When you go to a huge scale like the render of breaking the pyramid apart youve got to make a simulation of that, because there is no other way of doing it. You cant do that in miniatures so thats the cross over.
I always likedd how much practical effects Michael Bay tried to use in the first film like how he actually blew up a bus for the high way sequence.
Scott Farrar: He says that to me all the time, I want my background, do not cover it up with one of those robots (laughs). We can when we need to and I completely agree with him about when you can go real then why not? It looks better dont you think?
Yeah it totally does. It always bothers me seeing CGI being used for shots when it could have been done with practical effects. Plus bad CGI always takes me out of movies.
Scott Farrar: Yeah and I agree with that.
When you were working on Return of The Jedi and The Wrath of Khan did you ever imagine special effects coming this far?
Scott Farrar: Um, no (laughs). At the time you always would think what you were doing was so ingenious and inventive. Whats interesting is that Ive worked with people on this and I always say its like were students how were always pushing forward to try to make things look better. So its a collective thing that happens and sometimes you take big step forwards with ideas while other times its just little baby steps. Like Deep Impact was one of the first really big water shows that was done before The Perfect Storm and so forth. So it was like, Oh my gosh that was the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. We were trying all these things that were huge movie concepts that were so difficult. You know we made some end roads, but not as much as the next guy. It was as if we were pioneers then.
Was it weird when Deep Impact was coming that Armageddon was being released about the same time?
Scott Farrar: Well I of course didnt know Michael at the time and I thought, How crazy is it that these two movies are coming out in the same year?". So I saw his movie and I thought it was entertaining so I cant slight that one bit.
I thought the special features for the first Transformers film were great and I was wondering if you did any interviews or features that deal with the special effects for the Blu-Ray?
Scott Farrar: Yeah I did quite a bit including many interviews on set. There were cases like when we were on set and nobody has any idea what is going on. Actually the documenter who was on set a lot was also named Jack and he would come over a lot and say, Ok Scott can you explain this?. So I would basically explain the shot and say here is what is going to happen, this why were staging it this way, this camera is here for whatever reason, and the characters are going to go from here to here to knock down that wall. So I would just give them a play-by-play (laughs).
So how are you going to top all this with the third film?
Scott Farrar: Oh you just wait!
Maybe do ninety-two robots next time.
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Yeah they are going to be on a football team next time! Uh, well its all in the end going to be script dependent just like every other film. The mythology of all these characters, the Transformers, the Autobots, and the Decepticons is very deep if you look at the original source material. Its just like Greek mythology with all these characters and this whole world. You could just go on and on with this so I think that its really up to the writers and what they want to do with these mythic ideas. It's really always about good versus evil. The characters in this movie have grown up a little bit, you know? Shia is growing up and he goes off to college where he is no longer just a boy with his robot car, its bigger then that. There are so many ways to go next time and there are a lot of great ideas that we havent touched yet.
Do you know what are you working on next?
Scott Farrar: Um, I dont know (laughs). Well if there is another Transformers film then I would like to be apart of that. Then its sort of dependent upon how soon does that happen and since these movies take a long time then I cant really commit to another filmmaker that might take two years to do. There is always plenty to do at ILM.
Whenever you read the scripts for these films do you ever just think, How are we going to do this?
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Yeah! Many times, but then were all just little kids so we get over whelmed by the excitement of the idea and I think thats what keeps all of us going. So going into this one we were hoping it wouldnt be as tough as the first film, which wasnt the case (laughs).
Now CGI is obviously just a tool to tell the story, how do you make sure it doesnt brink the point of distraction where the film becomes style over substance?
Scott Farrar: Well the robots do play a pretty prominent part in this picture and rightly so, because they are apart of the story telling. The performances are more so important to me in the end. I dont really care for bombastic special effects pictures and I always hope that when were doing are work that it supports the plot, provides interesting characters, and it moves the story forward. I think thats what happens in this film even though these characters are larger then life. You know people say, Oh the actors are in support of the robots, and I dont really think thats true. Its the actors from Shia to Megan that sell the idea that the robots are there. You kind of have to see there performances without the effects in the back-round to see how good of actors they really are. I mean Shia, oh my gosh he has come a long way on this picture in terms of performance and what he did on the last picture.
Yeah Shia is the best part and he is the character that is easy to make the connection to, even when he went all Rambo and gung-ho at the end of the first film you still cared for his character.
Scott Farrar: Oh yeah I know, he is the human relationship that you have to the robots too. He kind of puts you into the movie since youll be able to relate in human terms to what is going on. I think that is an important concept.
If it was just all those robots and no human characters then you lose that connection.
Scott Farrar: I frankly think that it would be boring if it was just the robots.
Was it more important this time to give more detail to the robots facial expressions so you they could convey more emotions?
Scott Farrar: Yeah absolutely and when you see the film youll see better examples of this. There is a character named Jetfire who is a pivotal character in the movie who moves the story along and hes involved with the actors. So his facial performance and the emotions of his face needed to go up many notches of what he did with the first film. Thats true for several other characters including the ultimate bad guy who needs to look evil and menacing. Its like Shakespeare drama where you have real bad guys and you might be heading towards tragedy so you have to display emotion and anxiety. Its pretty interesting to have this opportunity to be able to create this stuff and its a lot of fun.
I want to let readers know just how incredible your work has been, so could you list a few of the films that you have worked on and objects that you have created.
Scott Farrar: Um, well I was very honored early on in my career to receive an Oscar for Cocoon. That was great working with Ron Howard on a really warm hearted film and its still a touching story to this day. Then with The Back to The Future films I feel like we provided great stories that you never get tired of and those stories were just fun thinking about jumping forward and back in time. Another hallmark idea was Who Framed Roger Rabbit with the whole concept of cartoons living in our world, it was one of those ideas that you hear and you just know that this is going to be a great film to make. A few years later with Minority Report, I thought that was a really fun detective style film that we tried to make as realistic as possible. Each and every film youre trying something new so thats what is ironic about never being able to do the same thing again.
Having worked with Zemeckis a few times would you ever want to work with him again?
Scott Farrar: Well Bob is an innovator and as a director he is pretty amazing. We used to find that he can take any idea that we had and he would make it three times more complicated, and he would figure it out. He is a very smart guy so I would definitely want to work with him again.
What are your thoughts on his use of motion capture?
Scott Farrar: Well we actually use that on Transformers, not on the level that he uses it, but we use it for quick little performances. The oddest thing about trying to produce animation is how difficult it is to do the big moves with the fights and so forth. All the animators will go out and video themselves in a big padded room where they can jump around, run, and bash so they can video tape that to use it for reference. So its not really motion capture, but they use it for guidance. The hardest things are standing and shuffling the feet. Scott, who is the head of the animation crew, would take a few guys and dress them up in some mo-cap suits to do these little moves. Thats the hardest stuff. There is this cool factor that we always try to put on a shot which is always what Michael Bay insists on. We love doing that and its hard to do mo-cap for that stuff. We did testing for that on the first film and it failed. We would look at it and say, "it looks to realistic and not mythic". You do things like shifting in slow motion and speed changes to make things look cooler. So things that we do for these films dont really relate to that stuff. We even tried having guys walking under water to see in terms of movement and weight whether it could work, and even that didnt look right. So you kind of have to make things up that look cool to the eye.
Was there any sequence you worked that you can remember that didnt make it into the final cut?
Scott Farrar: Not really, only random shots here and there. Michael is really good about turning over just the shots that he thinks will be in the movie. There isnt too much waste involved when youre working with Michael which is really cool.
I think whether you like Michael Bays films or not, he seems to be a competent director that always knows what he wants.
Scott Farrar: The thing I like about working with Michael is that he is a brilliant cameraman. He is also keen on design and art, because his whole back-round comes from art. He is a good decision maker that knows right away what he wants and he also always points out what isnt working for him. In my business that is the greatest thing you can have, because you do not want to work with someone that has a hard time making decisions. We all really enjoy working with him.
Since you also work on second unit are you ever yelling on set, We cant do this and this wont work?
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Not too much! A lot of times I will just mull over an idea and not just reject it right away. The only ideas we reject are bad ideas not just because something is technically undoable. The main thing these days is whether or not its a good idea. Everything goes back to art work and the concept primarily.
How involved are you when it comes to concept art?
Scott Farrar: A lot of the original art comes from the production department in LA that gets up and running early on. We know all those people and we all work hand in hand. So were heavily involved in that stuff. They do 2D art with the front views and the side views of a robot, then we turn it into a three dimensional shape. Most of the time, changes have to be made since the artist cannot possibly draw or paint in 3D. So once it goes to 3D a lot of changes occur and then Ill have to run that stuff by Michael. So then I tell Michael that we may have to change this or that since the robot will look ugly in front of a wide angle lens. So then well just thin the robots face, its a lot of back forth when it comes to this stuff. Thats what makes this collaboration fun.
What was it like shooting up by the Pyramids?
Scott Farrar: It was pretty spectacular and we got to do a lot there. We were roaming around the pyramid for about three or four days with our own little crew. We took these vehicles to go a couple a miles away from the pyramids to get these big distant views that we would use for our digital map painting later on. An awful lot of the back rounds that you see in the movie are augmented or fragmented. Well put extra villages in the back-round or other pyramids. We shot a part of that sequence in New Mexico, Egypt, and even in Jordan. Its crazy, we take the good pieces and put them all together in the same shot. So it was a wonderful opportunity to shoot at the pyramids.
With the two hundred million dollar budget, how much of that goes towards creating all these effects?
Scott Farrar: A lot more money then the last picture (laughs). I cant really say a number, but we had a much bigger budget then last time. You can get up to easily a millions dollars a week when it comes to shooting live action though due to all the labor. Sometimes its like two-hundred thousand dollars spent on one set piece. At the highpoint of my production I have three-hundred and fifty people working on the film during the last couple of months on the movie. Its not quite the same cost, but in terms of labor thats how many hands you need to make sure the film positively gets done in time for the theaters. So its all precise and delicate labor that carries on for over a year. We try to do all that we can to bring the cost down, but you want the best quality at the same time.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen hits theaters tonight (June 23rd) at midnight.
[Exclusive Interview] Scott Farrar (SFX Supervisor + 2nd Unit Director)
[url=http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/scottfarrar.jpg]
[/URL]A few days ago I was lucky enough to be able to do an on-phone interview with Scott Farrar the special effects supervisor and second unit director on Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen. You may not recognized Scott by name, but you have surely seen his work. Scott's masterful resumé includes Star Wars VI- Return of The Jedi, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, Artificial Intelligence: AI, and many other classic films. His work on both the Transformer films are ground breaking achievements in special effects.
Hows it going Scott? Big fan by the way.
Scott Farrar: Very well, thank you.
Was it a challenge getting all the effects done in a two year span and how much time did you have to work on the first film?
Scott Farrar: Well on the first film, actually each film took about a year and a half. We start with the script and then we start breaking it down to figure out how many shots and how much work is going to be involved. So after reading the script we realize, "Oh my gosh there are forty to six new characters!", and they have major speaking roles and they have to act a lot better then they did in the first one. So right away you see some pretty daunting challenges.
So how do you make sure all the robots are different and unique in their own way? So when they are battling the audience can tell the difference between an autobot and a decepticon.
Scott Farrar: Well we know that in the first movie some of the characters were a little bit confusing because some of their colors looked similar. So that was a big note from fans and audiences. So we tried very hard to make sure we had colors and shapes that were a little easier to tell apart. So we try to make sure the fallen standout and hopefully the voice actors help the audience recognize some of the characters. Its pretty easy for us to keep track of the characters because each one has a name so right away we start calling them by their name when watching dailies. So we can recognize that buffoon Starscream kissing up to Megatron! (Laughs)
How long generally does it take to model each robot and which one took the most time?
Scott Farrar: Devastator without a doubt took the longest to model. He is goliath in proportion; he is one hundred and fifty feet tall compared to poor little Optimus who is only twenty five feet tall. Megatron is also around thirty-two feet. So he's composed of a thousand parts and he has like eight different gigantic road grating dirt movers, so he is huge and complex. For a simple model character it would take about twelve weeks to model. That means just making all the shapes and putting them together to spin around to look at it. He doesn't move yet at that point and he has some rough paint on him or he may just be plastic grey shapes. Then the rigor goes in for about fifteen weeks rigging all the pieces together showing it as a skeleton frame so it can move around on the computer without all the pieces falling off. Then your kind of ready for shop production. You start with the paint and textures then you assign materials. We have a whole materials list thats been developed using shades and software technology to assign each coding color or texture. Then your talking about twenty plus weeks until you can put a character into production and for Devastator we divided up in teams to build his various parts so then he could be combined together as one. Hes just painful from the stand point of rendering. It would take like forty five minutes just to load him up on a screen just to look at him for one snap shot frame. Then it took seventy-two hours to a render a frame with him. (Sigh) It was on a new level of difficulty. Another interesting thing is that we used twenty terabytes disc space for memory for the first film and here its one-hundred and forty terabytes
Now is that number the final composition?
Scott Farrar: Yeah that number is everything with all things considered.
Whats the big difference between rendering an IMAX shot?
Scott Farrar: Yes, probably the easiest way to describe it is to talk about an anamorphic film frame. While a film frame is just a thirty-five millimeter frame just like in a still camera, its the same size. An IMAX frame is on seventy-millimeter film so its eight times larger. So if you want to have same fine grain, which you do, you got to have eight times the information and space to render that shot. So that gives you an idea and then suddenly everything is at a much higher level to produce the IMAX sections of the film.
I dont know if this is true, but I heard that some effects were recycled from the first film into the end battle. Is that correct?
Scott Farrar: (pause) Um, you know I just saw it last night and I noticed a couple of shots Michael used for the first show. I dont really have a good answer for that, but I know I noticed a couple shots that were used that didnt need to be redone. It was something to do with military [scenes].
How long did it take to complete Devastator?
Scott Farrar: Oh gosh (laughs), Devastator was kind of in process for about eight months. It is not just that because its a complicated question. You know we build one of the dirt movers and then we work out what the transformation part might be and also how the pieces get plugged together. Then you find out something doesnt work so you have to go back and redo something. Then the camera changes and then you got to change the way the animation originally was.
Dont you ever miss model making and crafting miniatures?
Scott Farrar: Well we actually still do that quite often, we shot a number of miniatures for this film. When the aircraft carrier gets hit we shot a lot of first scale flame elements. Also when Wheel-Bot is crushing through the free way we built a miniature free way and broke that apart. The Egyptian pillars that were Karnacks temple we had to break apart so we also used miniatures there. Also for lots and lots of dirt hits for the forest fight. So we still do as much as we can, but were at a strange point in cinematic terms where the simulations are getting much better. When you go to a huge scale like the render of breaking the pyramid apart youve got to make a simulation of that, because there is no other way of doing it. You cant do that in miniatures so thats the cross over.
I always likedd how much practical effects Michael Bay tried to use in the first film like how he actually blew up a bus for the high way sequence.
Scott Farrar: He says that to me all the time, I want my background, do not cover it up with one of those robots (laughs). We can when we need to and I completely agree with him about when you can go real then why not? It looks better dont you think?
Yeah it totally does. It always bothers me seeing CGI being used for shots when it could have been done with practical effects. Plus bad CGI always takes me out of movies.
Scott Farrar: Yeah and I agree with that.
When you were working on Return of The Jedi and The Wrath of Khan did you ever imagine special effects coming this far?
Scott Farrar: Um, no (laughs). At the time you always would think what you were doing was so ingenious and inventive. Whats interesting is that Ive worked with people on this and I always say its like were students how were always pushing forward to try to make things look better. So its a collective thing that happens and sometimes you take big step forwards with ideas while other times its just little baby steps. Like Deep Impact was one of the first really big water shows that was done before The Perfect Storm and so forth. So it was like, Oh my gosh that was the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. We were trying all these things that were huge movie concepts that were so difficult. You know we made some end roads, but not as much as the next guy. It was as if we were pioneers then.
Was it weird when Deep Impact was coming that Armageddon was being released about the same time?
Scott Farrar: Well I of course didnt know Michael at the time and I thought, How crazy is it that these two movies are coming out in the same year?". So I saw his movie and I thought it was entertaining so I cant slight that one bit.
I thought the special features for the first Transformers film were great and I was wondering if you did any interviews or features that deal with the special effects for the Blu-Ray?
Scott Farrar: Yeah I did quite a bit including many interviews on set. There were cases like when we were on set and nobody has any idea what is going on. Actually the documenter who was on set a lot was also named Jack and he would come over a lot and say, Ok Scott can you explain this?. So I would basically explain the shot and say here is what is going to happen, this why were staging it this way, this camera is here for whatever reason, and the characters are going to go from here to here to knock down that wall. So I would just give them a play-by-play (laughs).
So how are you going to top all this with the third film?
Scott Farrar: Oh you just wait!
Maybe do ninety-two robots next time.
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Yeah they are going to be on a football team next time! Uh, well its all in the end going to be script dependent just like every other film. The mythology of all these characters, the Transformers, the Autobots, and the Decepticons is very deep if you look at the original source material. Its just like Greek mythology with all these characters and this whole world. You could just go on and on with this so I think that its really up to the writers and what they want to do with these mythic ideas. It's really always about good versus evil. The characters in this movie have grown up a little bit, you know? Shia is growing up and he goes off to college where he is no longer just a boy with his robot car, its bigger then that. There are so many ways to go next time and there are a lot of great ideas that we havent touched yet.
Do you know what are you working on next?
Scott Farrar: Um, I dont know (laughs). Well if there is another Transformers film then I would like to be apart of that. Then its sort of dependent upon how soon does that happen and since these movies take a long time then I cant really commit to another filmmaker that might take two years to do. There is always plenty to do at ILM.
Whenever you read the scripts for these films do you ever just think, How are we going to do this?
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Yeah! Many times, but then were all just little kids so we get over whelmed by the excitement of the idea and I think thats what keeps all of us going. So going into this one we were hoping it wouldnt be as tough as the first film, which wasnt the case (laughs).
Now CGI is obviously just a tool to tell the story, how do you make sure it doesnt brink the point of distraction where the film becomes style over substance?
Scott Farrar: Well the robots do play a pretty prominent part in this picture and rightly so, because they are apart of the story telling. The performances are more so important to me in the end. I dont really care for bombastic special effects pictures and I always hope that when were doing are work that it supports the plot, provides interesting characters, and it moves the story forward. I think thats what happens in this film even though these characters are larger then life. You know people say, Oh the actors are in support of the robots, and I dont really think thats true. Its the actors from Shia to Megan that sell the idea that the robots are there. You kind of have to see there performances without the effects in the back-round to see how good of actors they really are. I mean Shia, oh my gosh he has come a long way on this picture in terms of performance and what he did on the last picture.
Yeah Shia is the best part and he is the character that is easy to make the connection to, even when he went all Rambo and gung-ho at the end of the first film you still cared for his character.
Scott Farrar: Oh yeah I know, he is the human relationship that you have to the robots too. He kind of puts you into the movie since youll be able to relate in human terms to what is going on. I think that is an important concept.
If it was just all those robots and no human characters then you lose that connection.
Scott Farrar: I frankly think that it would be boring if it was just the robots.
Was it more important this time to give more detail to the robots facial expressions so you they could convey more emotions?
Scott Farrar: Yeah absolutely and when you see the film youll see better examples of this. There is a character named Jetfire who is a pivotal character in the movie who moves the story along and hes involved with the actors. So his facial performance and the emotions of his face needed to go up many notches of what he did with the first film. Thats true for several other characters including the ultimate bad guy who needs to look evil and menacing. Its like Shakespeare drama where you have real bad guys and you might be heading towards tragedy so you have to display emotion and anxiety. Its pretty interesting to have this opportunity to be able to create this stuff and its a lot of fun.
I want to let readers know just how incredible your work has been, so could you list a few of the films that you have worked on and objects that you have created.
Scott Farrar: Um, well I was very honored early on in my career to receive an Oscar for Cocoon. That was great working with Ron Howard on a really warm hearted film and its still a touching story to this day. Then with The Back to The Future films I feel like we provided great stories that you never get tired of and those stories were just fun thinking about jumping forward and back in time. Another hallmark idea was Who Framed Roger Rabbit with the whole concept of cartoons living in our world, it was one of those ideas that you hear and you just know that this is going to be a great film to make. A few years later with Minority Report, I thought that was a really fun detective style film that we tried to make as realistic as possible. Each and every film youre trying something new so thats what is ironic about never being able to do the same thing again.
Having worked with Zemeckis a few times would you ever want to work with him again?
Scott Farrar: Well Bob is an innovator and as a director he is pretty amazing. We used to find that he can take any idea that we had and he would make it three times more complicated, and he would figure it out. He is a very smart guy so I would definitely want to work with him again.
What are your thoughts on his use of motion capture?
Scott Farrar: Well we actually use that on Transformers, not on the level that he uses it, but we use it for quick little performances. The oddest thing about trying to produce animation is how difficult it is to do the big moves with the fights and so forth. All the animators will go out and video themselves in a big padded room where they can jump around, run, and bash so they can video tape that to use it for reference. So its not really motion capture, but they use it for guidance. The hardest things are standing and shuffling the feet. Scott, who is the head of the animation crew, would take a few guys and dress them up in some mo-cap suits to do these little moves. Thats the hardest stuff. There is this cool factor that we always try to put on a shot which is always what Michael Bay insists on. We love doing that and its hard to do mo-cap for that stuff. We did testing for that on the first film and it failed. We would look at it and say, "it looks to realistic and not mythic". You do things like shifting in slow motion and speed changes to make things look cooler. So things that we do for these films dont really relate to that stuff. We even tried having guys walking under water to see in terms of movement and weight whether it could work, and even that didnt look right. So you kind of have to make things up that look cool to the eye.
Was there any sequence you worked that you can remember that didnt make it into the final cut?
Scott Farrar: Not really, only random shots here and there. Michael is really good about turning over just the shots that he thinks will be in the movie. There isnt too much waste involved when youre working with Michael which is really cool.
I think whether you like Michael Bays films or not, he seems to be a competent director that always knows what he wants.
Scott Farrar: The thing I like about working with Michael is that he is a brilliant cameraman. He is also keen on design and art, because his whole back-round comes from art. He is a good decision maker that knows right away what he wants and he also always points out what isnt working for him. In my business that is the greatest thing you can have, because you do not want to work with someone that has a hard time making decisions. We all really enjoy working with him.
Since you also work on second unit are you ever yelling on set, We cant do this and this wont work?
Scott Farrar: (laughs) Not too much! A lot of times I will just mull over an idea and not just reject it right away. The only ideas we reject are bad ideas not just because something is technically undoable. The main thing these days is whether or not its a good idea. Everything goes back to art work and the concept primarily.
How involved are you when it comes to concept art?
Scott Farrar: A lot of the original art comes from the production department in LA that gets up and running early on. We know all those people and we all work hand in hand. So were heavily involved in that stuff. They do 2D art with the front views and the side views of a robot, then we turn it into a three dimensional shape. Most of the time, changes have to be made since the artist cannot possibly draw or paint in 3D. So once it goes to 3D a lot of changes occur and then Ill have to run that stuff by Michael. So then I tell Michael that we may have to change this or that since the robot will look ugly in front of a wide angle lens. So then well just thin the robots face, its a lot of back forth when it comes to this stuff. Thats what makes this collaboration fun.
What was it like shooting up by the Pyramids?
Scott Farrar: It was pretty spectacular and we got to do a lot there. We were roaming around the pyramid for about three or four days with our own little crew. We took these vehicles to go a couple a miles away from the pyramids to get these big distant views that we would use for our digital map painting later on. An awful lot of the back rounds that you see in the movie are augmented or fragmented. Well put extra villages in the back-round or other pyramids. We shot a part of that sequence in New Mexico, Egypt, and even in Jordan. Its crazy, we take the good pieces and put them all together in the same shot. So it was a wonderful opportunity to shoot at the pyramids.
With the two hundred million dollar budget, how much of that goes towards creating all these effects?
Scott Farrar: A lot more money then the last picture (laughs). I cant really say a number, but we had a much bigger budget then last time. You can get up to easily a millions dollars a week when it comes to shooting live action though due to all the labor. Sometimes its like two-hundred thousand dollars spent on one set piece. At the highpoint of my production I have three-hundred and fifty people working on the film during the last couple of months on the movie. Its not quite the same cost, but in terms of labor thats how many hands you need to make sure the film positively gets done in time for the theaters. So its all precise and delicate labor that carries on for over a year. We try to do all that we can to bring the cost down, but you want the best quality at the same time.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen hits theaters tonight (June 23rd) at midnight.
Expendable.
Member
JdFoX187 said:
I really disliked Terminator Salvation and Wolverine, but I enjoyed both more than this film.
I haven't seen the movie yet... But I think the critics over-rated the first Transformers movie so much that they going the total opposite direction with this one. Although this is just a guess on the situation... I still hope the movie is somewhat cohesive in terms of being able to follow the story...
Some can please fill me in was the "Fallen" ever in the other Transformers Mythos, because this is the first time I'm hearing about it... I am asking this because I grew up on Generation 2, and Generation 1 reruns, Beast Wars, Beast Machines, and RiD, Armada, Energon, and a bit of Cybertron. Regardless of this was the Fallen a decipticon in the comics, because I never got the chance to read the comics?
Some can please fill me in was the "Fallen" ever in the other Transformers Mythos, because this is the first time I'm hearing about it... I am asking this because I grew up on Generation 2, and Generation 1 reruns, Beast Wars, Beast Machines, and RiD, Armada, Energon, and a bit of Cybertron. Regardless of this was the Fallen a decipticon in the comics, because I never got the chance to read the comics?
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
~Kinggi~ said:
Feh! Ignorant peon.
Buckethead
Banned
I didn't even know this was coming out tonight/tomorrow whatever.
Is it just me or is there absolutely no buzz?
Is it just me or is there absolutely no buzz?
Expendable.
Member
My review (some minor spoilers):
During a scene in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen John Turturros (The Taking of Pelham 123, Margot at the Wedding) character demands an autobot to reveal the plot and get to the point. This is one of the only scenes in the film in which I could genuinely relate to. As we move from scattered and tedious action scenes to cringe-worthy conversations I was desperately pleading for something in the film to have some sort of motivation behind it. That moment never occurred and Revenge of the Fallen devolved into a complete disaster of a film. The main problem lies with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmans (Star Trek, Mission Impossible 3) script, but they arent all to blame. Michael Bays (Transformers, Bad Boys 2) mind-numbing action scenes are somehow inferior to those of the first film, having little energy, and even less comprehension behind them.
The barely understandable plot follows Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye, Indiana Jones IV), going to college and trying to work out things with Mikaela Banes, played by Megan Fox (How To Lost Friends & Alienate People, Transformers). He somehow finds a scrap of the Allspark from the first film, which ignites him into full psycho mode, writing symbols everywhere. The rest of the film we are led to believe the Decepticons can only take over the world by getting a device called "The Matrix of Leadership" (how long did that take to come up with?), which can only be found through Sams brain.
Its a wonder how a project could go so wrong. The first Transformers is an enjoyable summer blockbuster, mired by bad dialogue and obnoxious characters. Be prepared, nothing in the first film even touches the absurdity of what occurs in this new addition. Paramount should hire a physical therapist after every showing to fix the damage caused by the endless headshaking during the excruciating two and half hours. Its difficult to fathom how such a big budget blockbuster with a solid first entry can take so many wrong turns.
Despite the many problems this film has a few marvels. ILM has produced some real magic here. All the CG elements, especially the robots, are perfectly integrated into the film. Its too bad every other piece of the movie distracts and ruins the spectacle. In the same vein, Shia LaBeouf is, by default, the true star here. Its hard to tell if he actually has lasting star power or, because every other character is so ridiculous and irritating, that he is the only one worth watching. Still, he is charming, engaging and able to pull us through the mediocre action scenes.
Playing Sams girlfriend is the barely conscious Megan Fox. In the first film she was simply eye candy alongside Sam. Somehow the writers thought, for this film, it would be a good idea to give her full conversations in which she had to be a convincing actress. This all falls apart in one particular scene where she has to act mad at Sam because she catches him cheating on her at college. After running, in high heels, from a robot that was ripped straight out of the Terminator series, Megan Fox has a painfully awkward exchange with Sam about the event. One can tell that the only thing that mattered in the scene was if Megan Fox had the exact right eye-shadow, lipstick, and tan.
The idea of acting as an afterthought was a running motif in the film. This can be seen by the brain-numbing one-liners delivered most notably by Tyrese Gibsons (Death Race, 2 Fast 2 Furious) character. He doesnt have more than two lines of dialogue in any particular scene and a Bad Boys II poster has more screen time than he does. Then comes Sams mom, played by Julie White (Taking Chance, Michael Clayton), who is so over-the-top unbearable while getting her ass slapped by her husband and getting stoned at college, I was desperately praying she would be violently killed by any deceptcon she came across. Then there is John Turturro. During the film I was questioning why he is part of this series and wondered how they could make his character worse then the first movie. Then suddenly, in a climax of pure embarrassment, he ripped off his pants only to reveal a Sector 7 jockstrap. I congratulate Orci and Kurtzmann in helping me remember one of the worst scenes of the first movie.
Most surprising is that no human character mentioned so far is the worst of the cast. Sams roommate, Leo, played by Ramon Rodriguez (Pride and Glory, The Taking of Pelham 123) wins the prize of being the most irritating, futile character to grace the screen this year. Yes, even worse than Paul Blart. With every utterance of any syllable the burning urge to walk out of the theater was perpetually growing inside my body. I understand the introduction of a side character to accompany the leads, but by the end of the film I was praying for Anthony Anderson (The Departed, Transformers) to return. Without going into any detail Ill let you endure the rest of the inane and idiotic cast who include an Indian midget guard, tight-shirt frat boys, stereotypical army officers, and the standard presidential adviser douche bag.
Remember when Michael Bay said with new technology he was able to make the robots look more life-like and have actions integral to the story? Well he was right, and it was a terrible, terrible idea. We get such marvelous designs like horny robots, crying robots, robot testicles and robots made out of a vacuum cleaners and ice cream trucks. Lets not forget the autobots that rival Jar Jar Binks, known as Skids and Mudflap. Imagine 12 year olds with learning disabilities that are discovering swear words for the first time and you pretty much get the idea. Then again, it is apparent that was Michael Bays key demographic from the start.
While viewing the film I kept telling myself that if this movie didnt have any action, it would be one of the worst films of the year. Then it ended and I came to the realization that even Bays high-octane explosions and ILMs beautiful creature work couldnt save this monstrous disaster. I do applaud Bay for making this film a little bit darker as we see Shias brain get infested by a robot. There are also select action scenes that are amusing but overall it comes off as a scattered, incomprehensible, and outrageous affair. The first action scene in Shanghai has a few thrills, with the biggest already shown in the trailer. The forest scene that looked promising was cut short and only disappoints. While the previous Transformers had one of the most entertaining finales in a summer blockbuster, this one is just an unintelligible, monotonous rehash of an action scene weve already seen. This is all topped off by an abrupt ending with the exact same tone, shot structure, and music as the first. When the Linkin Park cue starts you will be questioning what the hell you just saw and how they got the rights to Green Days new album so quickly.
The most upsetting thing about this film involves Steven Spielberg. As executive producer of the film, he saw the first screening of it and loved it, saying it was Bays most best film to date. I can only hope this was all some sick joke and Spielberg was playing a prank on us. We are left with an unsatisfying, mind-numbing outing that audiences will unfortunately eat up in droves. People may simply classify this film as an experience akin to a videogame, but lets not forget videogames are rewarding and have some sort of plot structure. Leaving the theater the only memory one can sustain is what Bay devoted the last 40 minutes to; Megan Foxs bouncing breasts as she is running away from explosions.
2 out of 10
During a scene in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen John Turturros (The Taking of Pelham 123, Margot at the Wedding) character demands an autobot to reveal the plot and get to the point. This is one of the only scenes in the film in which I could genuinely relate to. As we move from scattered and tedious action scenes to cringe-worthy conversations I was desperately pleading for something in the film to have some sort of motivation behind it. That moment never occurred and Revenge of the Fallen devolved into a complete disaster of a film. The main problem lies with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmans (Star Trek, Mission Impossible 3) script, but they arent all to blame. Michael Bays (Transformers, Bad Boys 2) mind-numbing action scenes are somehow inferior to those of the first film, having little energy, and even less comprehension behind them.
The barely understandable plot follows Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye, Indiana Jones IV), going to college and trying to work out things with Mikaela Banes, played by Megan Fox (How To Lost Friends & Alienate People, Transformers). He somehow finds a scrap of the Allspark from the first film, which ignites him into full psycho mode, writing symbols everywhere. The rest of the film we are led to believe the Decepticons can only take over the world by getting a device called "The Matrix of Leadership" (how long did that take to come up with?), which can only be found through Sams brain.
Its a wonder how a project could go so wrong. The first Transformers is an enjoyable summer blockbuster, mired by bad dialogue and obnoxious characters. Be prepared, nothing in the first film even touches the absurdity of what occurs in this new addition. Paramount should hire a physical therapist after every showing to fix the damage caused by the endless headshaking during the excruciating two and half hours. Its difficult to fathom how such a big budget blockbuster with a solid first entry can take so many wrong turns.
Despite the many problems this film has a few marvels. ILM has produced some real magic here. All the CG elements, especially the robots, are perfectly integrated into the film. Its too bad every other piece of the movie distracts and ruins the spectacle. In the same vein, Shia LaBeouf is, by default, the true star here. Its hard to tell if he actually has lasting star power or, because every other character is so ridiculous and irritating, that he is the only one worth watching. Still, he is charming, engaging and able to pull us through the mediocre action scenes.
Playing Sams girlfriend is the barely conscious Megan Fox. In the first film she was simply eye candy alongside Sam. Somehow the writers thought, for this film, it would be a good idea to give her full conversations in which she had to be a convincing actress. This all falls apart in one particular scene where she has to act mad at Sam because she catches him cheating on her at college. After running, in high heels, from a robot that was ripped straight out of the Terminator series, Megan Fox has a painfully awkward exchange with Sam about the event. One can tell that the only thing that mattered in the scene was if Megan Fox had the exact right eye-shadow, lipstick, and tan.
The idea of acting as an afterthought was a running motif in the film. This can be seen by the brain-numbing one-liners delivered most notably by Tyrese Gibsons (Death Race, 2 Fast 2 Furious) character. He doesnt have more than two lines of dialogue in any particular scene and a Bad Boys II poster has more screen time than he does. Then comes Sams mom, played by Julie White (Taking Chance, Michael Clayton), who is so over-the-top unbearable while getting her ass slapped by her husband and getting stoned at college, I was desperately praying she would be violently killed by any deceptcon she came across. Then there is John Turturro. During the film I was questioning why he is part of this series and wondered how they could make his character worse then the first movie. Then suddenly, in a climax of pure embarrassment, he ripped off his pants only to reveal a Sector 7 jockstrap. I congratulate Orci and Kurtzmann in helping me remember one of the worst scenes of the first movie.
Most surprising is that no human character mentioned so far is the worst of the cast. Sams roommate, Leo, played by Ramon Rodriguez (Pride and Glory, The Taking of Pelham 123) wins the prize of being the most irritating, futile character to grace the screen this year. Yes, even worse than Paul Blart. With every utterance of any syllable the burning urge to walk out of the theater was perpetually growing inside my body. I understand the introduction of a side character to accompany the leads, but by the end of the film I was praying for Anthony Anderson (The Departed, Transformers) to return. Without going into any detail Ill let you endure the rest of the inane and idiotic cast who include an Indian midget guard, tight-shirt frat boys, stereotypical army officers, and the standard presidential adviser douche bag.
Remember when Michael Bay said with new technology he was able to make the robots look more life-like and have actions integral to the story? Well he was right, and it was a terrible, terrible idea. We get such marvelous designs like horny robots, crying robots, robot testicles and robots made out of a vacuum cleaners and ice cream trucks. Lets not forget the autobots that rival Jar Jar Binks, known as Skids and Mudflap. Imagine 12 year olds with learning disabilities that are discovering swear words for the first time and you pretty much get the idea. Then again, it is apparent that was Michael Bays key demographic from the start.
While viewing the film I kept telling myself that if this movie didnt have any action, it would be one of the worst films of the year. Then it ended and I came to the realization that even Bays high-octane explosions and ILMs beautiful creature work couldnt save this monstrous disaster. I do applaud Bay for making this film a little bit darker as we see Shias brain get infested by a robot. There are also select action scenes that are amusing but overall it comes off as a scattered, incomprehensible, and outrageous affair. The first action scene in Shanghai has a few thrills, with the biggest already shown in the trailer. The forest scene that looked promising was cut short and only disappoints. While the previous Transformers had one of the most entertaining finales in a summer blockbuster, this one is just an unintelligible, monotonous rehash of an action scene weve already seen. This is all topped off by an abrupt ending with the exact same tone, shot structure, and music as the first. When the Linkin Park cue starts you will be questioning what the hell you just saw and how they got the rights to Green Days new album so quickly.
The most upsetting thing about this film involves Steven Spielberg. As executive producer of the film, he saw the first screening of it and loved it, saying it was Bays most best film to date. I can only hope this was all some sick joke and Spielberg was playing a prank on us. We are left with an unsatisfying, mind-numbing outing that audiences will unfortunately eat up in droves. People may simply classify this film as an experience akin to a videogame, but lets not forget videogames are rewarding and have some sort of plot structure. Leaving the theater the only memory one can sustain is what Bay devoted the last 40 minutes to; Megan Foxs bouncing breasts as she is running away from explosions.
2 out of 10
Scarecrow
Member
I super liked it except for the twins. It reminded me of that kevin smith interview when a studio exec wanted to put a wise cracking black midget in Superman's fortress of solitude, except they succeeded in getting TWO of them in Transformers.
Also, the forest fight was real keen.
Also, the forest fight was real keen.
DanielPlainview said:
I haven't seen it yet, but if it's as bad as the majority are saying... Steven
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/
Down to 25%
Another review brings up the B and R
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I think at this point the criticisms are turning into a contest of hyperbole.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
IGN review is up. 3 out of 5. Reviewer expected a massive robot fight and he got it. Other than that, he says it sucked. So i guess 3 points for the robots and 2 points were taken out for the story/acting?
By comparison, they gave the first movie 3.5 out of 5.
By comparison, they gave the first movie 3.5 out of 5.
DOO13ER said:
I agree. It certainly feels that way. Half of the reviews have me writing off certain reviewers permanently to be honest. There are some truly ridiculous complaints and comments. As you said, it's starting to turn in to a competition as to who can lambaste the film with the severest criticism irrespective of how much backing they give to that opinion.
I think the fact that this film, and the last, was so popular and made so much money only adds to it. There's almost this bitter resentment with reviewers, who seem to be holding a grudge about the fact that this movie is reviewer proof.
Expendable.
Member
nib95 said:
If it makes a difference, I really enjoyed the first film (I even went to the special screenings they had a cpl months ago) and well...you can read my review above.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
nib95 said:
you're probably right that it's reviewer proof in that people will see it anyway - but if someone thinks it's a shitty film, they should say so, no? the prevailing attitude seems to be 'it's a michael bay film, you should expect it to be shit and adjust your review accordingly'. it's a terrible movie. most people are going on the fact that they enjoyed the first, and it's not living up to that (clearly).
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I don't mean to suggest that this film can't possibly suck, it just seems like the reviews are trending toward trying to appear even more disgusted than the last. This is just me, but when I think of a 2/10 or, "putrid...offensive" film something closer to shit like Dumb and Dumberer, Ballistic or Gili comes to mind.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
:lol Or perhaps the movie just isn't good, even relative to Transformers 1? I love how you think people are shitting on it for the attention. Yes and game critics hated Haze because it was popular to do so!nib95 said:
I still don't understand how this movie is reviewer proof.. are you speaking in terms of box office? If so, no shit. Paul Blart, Angels & Demons and a few dozen egregiously awful films made big money this year, like every year even with rotten reviews. The fact that this will be popular doesn't really equate to anything. If you're speaking in terms of the old 'oh well critics love arty movies and hate blockbusters so fuck them' messages.. then I have to disagree with you because even on the Transformers 1 level, the majority apparently agree that this movie does not succeed. Again, I'll watch it before I make any kind of value judgement of my own but to pretend there is some kind of bias or agenda out against this movie is incredibly fucking naive. I think Michael Bay, Megan Fox and Shia himself are not that surprised by that RT score.
Buckethead
Banned
What did Armond White say about this movie? Best movie since Citizen Kane?
Did Stephanie Zacharek demand an oscar nom based of Megan Fox's perfectly styled hair?
Did Stephanie Zacharek demand an oscar nom based of Megan Fox's perfectly styled hair?
DanielPlainview said:
I read your review, and it was a perfect example of what I was getting at. No plot structure to speak of? Last 40 minutes being devoted to nothing but bouncing breasts? Action scenes with little energy and comprehension behind them?
I mean....did we watch the same film or are you just looking for excuses to bash the film?
You focus on mainly the negative (apart from a few sentences praising the quality of the CGI, predictably and indirectly Shia La Beouf's performance), and brush completely over anything else positive. Even when discussing the movies more prominent achievement, the actual machines themselves.
DanielPlainView said:
And what about all the other well designed Transformers? Sideswipe, the opening decepticon, Jetfire, Jetfire Prime, Akri, Devastator, the Puma type decepticon (which is animated superbly), Megatron's re-design, the thin blade infiltration transformer, Sound wave and so forth? I thought these were all impressively designed and structured. Yet, not surprisingly, you gloss over them completely.
.
That was something that really REALLY stood out for me...loved the way it pounced and prowled about as it was shooting at stuff from a distance.nib95 said:
Watched the movie last night so some quick impressions: Stepped in the theatre with an open-mind, walked out with it blown to bits. My main gripe with the first movie was how the robots were reduced to a bunch of oneliners so when they had the Fallen, Megatron and Starscream scheming about on some distant planet, I was all smiles. Probably my favourite scene in the whole movie because they took a page right out of the old cartoons Visually impressive like the first movie but certain scenes were a bit off, like the one that had a small bot about to hack into Shia's brain...like the bot was lit too brightly or something. The plot was a bit hard to follow but I"m not gonna complain about writing quality since I feel it would behoove the viewer to just enjoy the movie for what it really is: a pretty campy popcorn flick.
And I thought that Sam's new roommate looked a little familiar, found out it was this guy to the right:
Expendable.
Member
burgerdog said:
Once you see it, you will understand how the few well-done parts get COMPLETELY overshadowed by the utter and absurd embarrassment that is the rest of the film. I was trying to reflect that feeling in my review.
DanielPlainview said:
I've seen it already, and again, I completely disagree. There were so many scenes and segments I absolutely loved.
The opening was great (Shang Hai factory), the forest battle, Devastator, the Cybertron/Fallen parts, the explorative segments/Egypt, the decepticon infiltration to steal the shard piece, all the prime fights, Bumble Bee's desert battle, the history of the primes, Jetfire, jetfire prime, when the decepticons come to Earth, when they pull megatron from the ocean and start their assault etc etc
There were quite a few brilliant (action) segments in the film contrary to how you're making it out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there wasn't some silly, overly drawn out or disjointed scenes, but it's not to the degree or balance you're suggesting.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Bad Boys 2 is one of my favorite movies, does this mean I will like T2? 
Can't wait until I watch this sorry piece of a turd on Friday. :lol
Oh, and Harry's (AICN) review is out. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41512
Oh, and Harry's (AICN) review is out. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41512
dammitmattt
Banned
nib95 said:
You are going to be on an island trying to defend this movie. And this is coming from a guy who is open-minded enough to pay $22 for beer, finger foods, and an Imax showing of the film in two days.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
dammitmattt said:
at least my ticket was free, cos i paid $23 for a plate with about 4 finger-sized bits of calamari on it and a beer
- Status