Jump to content


Photo

TRANSFORMERS


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 28 June 2007 - 08:09 AM

Yep, I enjoyed it ...

and the best part was that I haven't laughed out loud like that and for so long for such a long time ... The whole backyard scene 'oop's, my bad' 'get off the grass!' etc... - still laughing now

Sheesh I'll try not to spoil it -

Anyhoo's I played with the toys back in the days - was a real nice feeling to fall back into that world ...

Bumblebee - expected not to like the fact he was no longer a VW, but he's the best of all of the transformer characters - reckon he should have stayed as the older car...

Starscream - I like the fact he is no longer the whining usurper, and the autobots kind of freaked when they knew he was on his way ... respect

Jazz ! -
Spoiler


Megatron/Optimus - ho hum

Soundwave ??? - yikes switch that thing off, or better yet - strike him from the script

various other bits, bots and baddies - pretty well done

What the hell was the vending machine ? an autobot, a decepticon ?

oh yeh, and so what was optimus doing for most of that end scene ? - he kinda rolls on in a bit casually huh

Sound - nice

a heap of grain though for scope ... little blue blobs in the blacks...

excuse the ramble ... keen to hear what others thought
  • 0

#2 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2007 - 03:54 PM

I saw this last night and I thought it was pretty dead on. The the writing was pretty good and it really was funny. I don't know much about computer graphics but it looked really good to me. I thought the opening shots of the planes flying over the desert were really nice.

Definitely one of the better movies to come out this summer, felt like a complete story with good acting that complemented the story nicely... It was worth paying for and standing in line.

really fun, great movie

Edited by Joshua Dannais, 03 July 2007 - 03:58 PM.

  • 0

#3 Giles Sherwood

Giles Sherwood
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2007 - 04:04 PM

I saw this on a DLP screen today... second film I've seen projected like that (the other one was Disney's Atlantis a couple years back). DLP looked *almost* as good as film projection for the most part... there were a few times I could feel or outright see the presence of pixelation and a certain video-y flatness... but for the most part I didn't really notice a difference.

Basically Michael Bay delivered 90% of the film I wanted to see... basically the only thing it really lacked was
Spoiler
Other than that, I had tons of fun. I mean the story was a total spastic mess, but fun and funny as hell. We really need to see Peter Cullen's Optimus Prime in another flick.

As for the look there were all of the usual good and bad things about a Michael Bay film. It was definitely exciting, but sometimes it cut before you knew what you were seeing, and there was a little too much shakeycam. Additionally, though I loved the robot designs, they were a little too complex to withstand super-shakey closeups, because you aren't used to seeing them enough to be able to identify them quickly every time. I was also really surprised at the grain in all of the government base scenes It seemed at odds with the rest of the "slick" photography.
  • 0

#4 e gustavo petersen

e gustavo petersen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA | CA | USA

Posted 03 July 2007 - 06:20 PM

I'm gonna jump in to also compliment a great popcorn movie. I grew up with the Transformers but have to admit that I never did much care for the premise since I was a Robotech fan instead. Still the movie delivered on all things Michael Bay. The room laughed at all the right times. We all loved the CG and the slick look. And for the most part, we all got the inside jokes about previous Bay movies.

In all, it was by far and away one of the slickest car and toy commercial of the year!
  • 0

#5 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 03 July 2007 - 08:55 PM

There was some serious grain in a few shot during the INT Pentagon scenes early on, especially during a scene between the Austrailian woman and Jon Voight. Could have been optical zooms in post or underexposure issues.

CGI of the robots looked good throughout the picture.

Acting, writing and pacing was pretty good too, but I often felt like I was watching a U.S. Military recruiting film.
  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:58 AM

There was some serious grain in a few shot during the INT Pentagon scenes early on, especially during a scene between the Austrailian woman and Jon Voight.


I noticed some harsh grain in "Sam's" home as well. It was just very noticeable because the majority of the film was so crisp.

By the way, how horrible was Jon Voigt in this film? Ha ha, it was as if he was just being fed his lines without caring for his performance (except for a slight southern accent). And the whole codebreaker tangent could have been disposed of, it just made it harder to fit so much action into a 2+ hour film...during which the pacing suffered a bit.

Still, loved the film, definitely a popcorn movie...and the whole theatre heard me cheer when that quintessential "transforming sound" was heard early on. And a certain Autobot's death really pissed me off...I mean, give him something a bit more dignified!
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 July 2007 - 02:09 AM

Have you seen the Robot Chicken sketch about the Transformers?

  • 0

#8 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 July 2007 - 03:55 AM

Ha ha! "Retardicon"...my new favorite word.
  • 0

#9 James Compton

James Compton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 July 2007 - 04:26 PM

Wow. They actually did the cartoon series(original) some justice. I am always happy to see
an Anamorphic film with great focus pulling. The CGI was good, not too much American Velveeta.
Jazz was the flyest of them all. Also, glad to hear Peter Cullen playing Optimus Prime again. Pretty Good.
  • 0

#10 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 04 July 2007 - 04:54 PM

Ha ha! "Retardicon"...my new favorite word.


Yeh, the shower scene is pretty funny - and when optimus tranforms into the coffin ...

Still though, who would have expected it ... more laughs at the film :lol:
  • 0

#11 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 July 2007 - 01:50 AM

Have you seen the Robot Chicken sketch about the Transformers?


Bah, I missed it. There's a message there now about a copyright infringement complaint by Viacom and the video is removed.:( I thought parody was well within free speech protection.....
  • 0

#12 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 05 July 2007 - 06:15 AM

Viacom is the distributor for Robot Chicken, which itself is copywrited.
  • 0

#13 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 05 July 2007 - 11:26 AM

I noticed some harsh grain in "Sam's" home as well. It was just very noticeable because the majority of the film was so crisp.


Yeah, that one stood out for me, as well. Looked like it might have been either pushed or brought up in the DI, after the fact.

I noticed a few focus issues (on static CU's no less) in a couple of shots. All in an extremely good summer popcorn flick that did the cartoon justice. Lots of fun.

BTW, what was the deal with the multiple rectangular 'sun flares' that popped in a couple of shots - i.e. a wide shot towards the end where Sam is running through the abandoned 'warehouse' while being chased by Megatron? Are those naturally occuring or is that a post thing?
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2007 - 07:24 PM

I saw this today projected in 2K DLP at the Mann Village. Overall, I think it looked great, especially that clean hi-con desert stuff. Even though his style is overly cutty, he knows how to stage a great wide shot, if only he would stay with it for more than 40 frames.

Michael Bay's treatment of women, though, still seems like he spent his formative years at a strip club. The low point in the movie was that shot of the nameless woman in the street in a low-cut dress that almost looked like a blue negligee, a super-slo-mo tracking shot around her chest as the camera followed some missiles being fired. He must have spent some time thinking of how he could combine breasts and explosions into one shot.

The hyper-caffeinated acting style got a little wearing - it's like a movie made by, and for, crystal meth addicts.
  • 0

#15 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 06 July 2007 - 07:35 PM

Michael Bay's treatment of women...

I think that sometime early on in preproduction they all decided that the movie would be targeted strictly at 15-18 year old boys, and every creative decision from then on was made with that in mind.
  • 0

#16 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 07 July 2007 - 12:37 AM

Michael Bay's treatment of women, though, still seems like he spent his formative years at a strip club. The low point in the movie was that shot of the nameless woman in the street in a low-cut dress that almost looked like a blue negligee, a super-slo-mo tracking shot around her chest as the camera followed some missiles being fired. He must have spent some time thinking of how he could combine breasts and explosions into one shot.

The hyper-caffeinated acting style got a little wearing - it's like a movie made by, and for, crystal meth addicts.


I HAVE GOT TO see this movie!!!! :D
  • 0

#17 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 07 July 2007 - 08:52 AM

Any word on the series of Panavision anamorphics and film stocks used for the film?

The image is pretty crisp at times, but I've seen it on a huge screen and I feel the overall sharpness is not a big improvement over a good Super 35 (the same happened to "Blood Diamond" last year). I guess they went with C & E series -plus Angenieux zooms- and the DI didn't help either.

I think the look tried to replicate once again the "classic Bay", which I don't think that is particularly good, but I admit that it can be gorgeous from time to time. But for a film so desperate to achieve such a slick look, the lack of consistency of the grain structure is really surprissing.

The film itself is dumb, but probably it's Michael Bay's best effort to date.

Great Fun.
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 July 2007 - 10:41 AM

Did it look like they snuck some Genesis footage in there at some point, for some night work? And some Super-35?
  • 0

#19 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 July 2007 - 12:25 PM

Any word on the series of Panavision anamorphics and film stocks used for the film?

There is an artciel in the ICG amagazine (and on www.cameraguild.com). They only mention 5218 for night areal exteriors (surprise!). These were shot Super 35. Nothing specific on the anamorphics, but I'd guess it's the usual E and C-Series mix that they used on his previous films as well.
  • 0

#20 Joe Lotuaco

Joe Lotuaco
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Grip

Posted 07 July 2007 - 11:55 PM

Loved this movie!! It really brought me back to my younger days. Hell, I even bought the new toys hehe. But I think I loved this one more for the characters than the cinematography. Lots of techniques and themes were used, but they were overused to the point that it distracted away from the story and was probably the best example to Chris Doyle's description of western films as telling its audience "Hey, look at this!!!!!!!" This movie, I think, was just lucky it had some (but not all) good, strong characters, especially Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. Though it didn't spend enough time developing the characters of the other Autobots and Decepticons (or anyone of the humans for that matter), the potential to [re]create unique and lovable characters is there. I know I left the theatre wishing I had my own Bumblebee.

Did anyone else notice how many magic hour shots there were? I can only recall only one or two regular daytime shots. I also noticed this affected some continuity when shots would show helicopters flying against a setting sun, then cut to them landing at dusk after sunset, then to a shot in a tent where the sun is still out, and then back to the control tower where it was night...all for action that was supposedly happening simultaneously. Obviously some of the shots were beautiful, but there was definitely a level of overkill of its usage. Not only did he have the sun in the background of a lot of shots, the extensive usage of lights in the background blowing out and/or creating lots of anamorphic flares was very very distracting and sort of headache inducing.

I also noticed some pretty bad focus shots. The main one is the one in the trailer where Shia and Megan Fox see Bumblebee for the first time and he says the line "it's a super advanced robot, must be Japanese". It just looks so blatantly out of focus, I don't know how not only did it make the final cut of the movie, but the main release trailer.

I'm glad Michael bay directed this one, he set the stage for what can be achieved in creating a live action version of the Transformers, but I really hope he doesn't direct the next one (he even publicly admitted he didn't like the Transformers before doing this movie until they told him how much money he'd be getting for it). As fast as he likes cutting, his usage of slow-motion shots really kills the pace of some of the action sequences. Was it really necessary to show John Voight getting off the helicopter in slow motion? If this movie were anything but the Transformers, I really don't think it would have as many people loving it and going back to see it for a second and third time..like me :blink:
  • 0


CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

CineLab

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC