Latest movie update
Kil - Michael McCarthy
new being reported.
http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4762
Basically, Steven Speilberg is busy promoting "War of the Worlds,"
Michael Bay is still working on the final cut of "The Island," and the
TF script is still being re-written.
And here's a quote about what to expect from the movie:
> if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
> each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out. This does
> NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation. The film
> we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
> robot war among them.
-Kil
Thunder, Agent '005
>>if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
>>each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out. This does
>>NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation. The film
>>we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
>>robot war among them.
I'm not entirely clear on what he means by that...
t.k.
Ground Zero
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:AVLve.1809530$Xk.1538215@pd7tw3no...
I think "Less robots, more humans trying to deal with the giant robots
fighting around them".
-GZ
Autobus Prime
> > >>if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
> > >>each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out
Dear folks:
This seems to imply that the film will be about the Giant
Robots that DO exist in reality...I am intrigued.
Cordially yours,
Autobus Prime
w/minicon Farebox.
ric...@univali.br
and "aaahhh" while doing incredbly stupid things, intercalated with
some FX eye candy.
Aaron F. Bourque
::sigh::
But that's not Transformers! </whine>
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; geez, Murphy doesn't seem to grasp
the inner concept the licenses he gets. I fear the Death movie. So
much.
Thunder, Agent '005
>This does
>NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation.
This is the line I find confusing. It's not a live-action film? All the
reports say it is... I KNOW it's a live-action film! Or does he mean
it's going to be a special fx extravaganza first and some kind of
threadbare story second?
t.k.
David Willis
He's saying that all the things people are demanding only work in animation,
and will not play well in a live-action film, which they are making.
--David
www.shortpacked.com
"Beauty Personified"
>>> This does NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation.
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> This is the line I find confusing. It's not a live-action film? All the
>> reports say it is... I KNOW it's a live-action film! Or does he mean it's
>> going to be a special fx extravaganza first and some kind of threadbare
>> story second?
"David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> He's saying that all the things people are demanding only work in
> animation, and will not play well in a live-action film, which they are
> making.
I got the impression that he was talking more about the plot, and that it
would be more from the humans point of view. That is, how the humans deal
when a sudden war between giant robots erupts around them. I surely hope
that's not the case. Having some perspective from one or two humans (e.g.
Sparkplug, Spike) is fine, but the main perspective should be from the
Transformers, if it's to truly be a "Transformers movie".
Anyhoo...
Christopher "Beautiful" Carlson
Canada's #1 Nashville Predators Fan
"You can never have too many pucks."
http://www.livejournal.com/users/beautypersoni/
Cartman
ME GORILLA!
ME HUNGRY!
GIVE ME BANANA!
Aaron F. Bourque
Which is bullshit, but ::shrug:: he's a moron, so . . .
Krypto
fans demand a film about Jimmy Olsen with a short Superman cameo?
"Flying men in tights isn't real world - go buy a comic book!"
In a more serious note, his paragraph is either the result of
frustration or an inability to articulate his thoughts clearly. For
someone involved with developing a Movie that doesn't instill me with
confidence.
In short, hes coming across poorly. Still, the movie could still be
great. I so hope it is.
Aaron F. Bourque
> I gotta agree, what does Murphy expect the fans to want? Would Superman
> fans demand a film about Jimmy Olsen with a short Superman cameo?
> "Flying men in tights isn't real world - go buy a comic book!"
Heh heh heh.
Batman Begins and the Spider-Man and X-Men movies set the bar kinda
high. I don't expect every movie to meet that bar, but come on, Don! At
least know your material!
> In a more serious note, his paragraph is either the result of
> frustration or an inability to articulate his thoughts clearly. For
> someone involved with developing a Movie that doesn't instill me with
> confidence.
He never really instilled me with a lot of confindence. LXG was fun,
but highly stupid.
> In short, hes coming across poorly. Still, the movie could still be
> great. I so hope it is.
Yeah, it could be great. I mean, writers from Alias, Michael Bay's
niche, Spielberg produced . . .
It just doesn't look like it's gonna be great Transformers.
Thunder, Agent '005
>>He's saying that all the things people are demanding only work in animation,
>>and will not play well in a live-action film, which they are making.
>
>
> Which is bullshit, but ::shrug:: he's a moron, so . . .
>
> Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
>
Maybe they're concerned about spending too much money and so are
limiting the animation time on-film and using the Humans to fill the
spaces in-between? That would be my bet...
t.k. (although I agree with you)
--
Adding a little flavor to the web...
Thunder, Agent '005
Well said. ;)
t.k.
Greenboy
> It just doesn't look like it's gonna be great Transformers.
>
Yea, but everyone *except* the true fans will love it, you watch. It'll
become fashionable for a few months, then all of a sudden there'll be all
kinds of "die-hard" fans popping up. I can't wait to see this newsgroup at
that point. Kind of like Star Wars; Episode I. All of a sudden EVERYONE
was a Star Wars fan. Dollars to doughnuts that's what's going to happen
with Transformers. That's my rant for the day.
Greenboy
Pyre
> I gotta agree, what does Murphy expect the fans to want?
It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
have it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to
making it live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive
to do otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll be.
--
Pyre[Rock] - pyres...@crosswinds.net
http://pyresdomain.crosswinds.net/
"If you think it's over better think again. There'll be no compromise.
Turning up the power, feel adrenaline, move into overdrive."
Greenboy
It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
> a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
> have it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to
> making it live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive
> to do otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll
be.
>
Not that I don't appreciate the attempt, (and they may actually stylishly
pull it off), but I think that some things just belong in their original
format that made them great to begin with. The one thing that I'm worried
about is the dialogue of the 'bots. I don't want them to appear sub-human,
(meaning "Prime... me kill Prime"), and not be able to be reasoned with or
have intelligent conversations *with* the humans. Now, that former example
would work with Grimlock, but I want them to have their distinct
personalities. That shouldn't be too difficult to transfer from toon to
live-action. I don't need an entire film without human interaction, but to
ask for what I'm asking is not too much at all. I just think that the more
they play with the concept the worse off we're going to be for it. Just go
with the initial instincts and core reason to make it and the film should be
alright. *Never* give them time to think... 8^)
Greenboy
paul
> each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out. This does
> NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation. The film
> we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
> robot war among them.
The next thing you know, they'll rewrite it that humans MADE the TFs, and
they just became smart and began fighting with each other.
Humans dealing with a robot wat among them sounds quite boring really. You
want a TRANSFORMERS movie to be about TRANSFORMERS!!!!! Leave the fleshies
as comic relief. =)
Simple plot for a live action is to take MTMTE and make a film of it. What's
wrong with that.
Paul - Back after a long absence from ATT
"Beauty Personified"
"Greenboy" <mrb...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> Yea, but everyone *except* the true fans will love it, you watch. It'll
> become fashionable for a few months, then all of a sudden there'll be all
> kinds of "die-hard" fans popping up. I can't wait to see this newsgroup
> at
> that point. Kind of like Star Wars; Episode I. All of a sudden EVERYONE
> was a Star Wars fan. Dollars to doughnuts that's what's going to happen
> with Transformers. That's my rant for the day.
It's gonna be very interesting on ATT once the previews for the movie start
popping up. I wonder what effect it will have on ATTCM and RTTM? I might
have to return to RTTM if a horde of trolls attacks ATT. Hopefully, others
will join me in my retreat. :-) Actually, the more I think about what effect
the movie will have on ATT, the more scared I get. :-[
paul
> a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
> have it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to
> making it live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive
> to do otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll
be.
Therein lies the problem. TF wasn't about humans living with robots, it was
about the robots.
I'm sure others would agree that we'd rather have no live action movie than
a "It's all human, and oh, here's a TF in the background" type deal. This
isn't X-Men, or Batman where the focus is on a human character.
If left as a human movie, we can pretty much guess how it'll go:
Scene: Refinery plant (or similar hard-hat workplace) Spike (Buster?)
Witwicky is dreaming about the new intern secretary in the main office,
Carly. His dad smacks him in the head and tells him to keep his mind on his
work. Chatter of fellow workers is heard talking about reports of strange
robot-like creatures attacking power plants, when suddenly an explosion
rocks the building, rubble flies in all directions, as Spike sees the office
building is ablaze. He charges into the building, as workers flee past
trying to escape, he sees Carly pinned under some debris and runs to her
side. He pulls the rubble off of her, and carries her toward the exit.
Suddenly the roof collapses and fire blocks the escape. Spike retreats to
the back of the building, holding Carly in his arms, all seems lost, when
suddenly, "Need a hand?" A giant hand comes smashing through the wall and
scoops up Spike and Carly and pulls them out of the building to safety.
.... or something like that. =)
Paul
Krypto
of human focus, I don't really buy the expense argument, many, many
films are now being done almost wholly in CGI. I understand that in
order to attract a larger market share the main story will probably
rotate around a group of humans, but unless the focus of the movie is
on Transformers and actually deals with them directly (Rather than them
being monsters that show up at the end like in Gozilla or something)
there will be a lot of unhappy fans.
If the TF's are established early on as characters in their own right
theres more of a chance of cutting back on the human-focus. If you keep
waiting and waiting for the TF's to appear it will make it harder for
the audience to identify with them and it'll seem just like one more
disaster movie with TF's in the pace of an
earthquake/asteroid/whatever...
cap...@godisdead.com
Greenboy wrote:
> It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
> > a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
> > have it with a heavy focus on humans.
>
> Not that I don't appreciate the attempt, (and they may actually stylishly
> pull it off), but I think that some things just belong in their original
> format that made them great to begin with. The one thing that I'm worried
> about is the dialogue of the 'bots. I don't want them to appear sub-human,
> (meaning "Prime... me kill Prime"), and not be able to be reasoned with or
> have intelligent conversations *with* the humans.
Why would you think their dialog will be sub-human?? I mean, after Star
Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Robocop and so many others I believe
Hollywood can come up with quite a few "believable" intelligent robots.
For myself, I really like the fact that they're taking this distant
view of the TFs. They are gigantic mechanical monsterous aliens
carrying lots of weapons in WAR - what the hell would anyone want
around these guys?? They can't be taken as goodie/baddie too quick, nor
can't be shown too obviously in their own perspective - or it will turn
into a "video game". I'm sorry for the cartoon fans around, but I think
it will be better if they don't turn this movie into some Sunday
Morning Cartoon with bigger explosions.
Pyre
>
> Simple plot for a live action is to take MTMTE and make a film of it. What's
> wrong with that.
>
It'd be ridiculously expensive not to mention completely defeating the
purpose of doing a live action movie. What you want is an animated
movie, which is NOT WHAT THIS IS.
cap...@godisdead.com
> > It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
> > a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
> > have it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to
> > making it live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive
> > to do otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll
> be.
>
> Therein lies the problem. TF wasn't about humans living with robots, it was
> about the robots.
Precisely, and you can get away with that in a comic book or a cartoon,
just as you could with Wolverine's yellow spandex.
> I'm sure others would agree that we'd rather have no live action movie than
> a "It's all human, and oh, here's a TF in the background" type deal. This
> isn't X-Men, or Batman where the focus is on a human character.
Not that the focus must be necessarily on humans, but the human factor
can't be ignored. Look at E.T. for example. Elliot is just as
important, but that doesn't make the movie be named EllioT. That's a
well done interaction of humans and aliens - something you can identify
with. Another good example is Terminator 2. A bad example would be
Independence Day.
> Scene: Refinery plant (or similar hard-hat workplace) Spike (Buster?)
snip
> the back of the building, holding Carly in his arms, all seems lost, when
> suddenly, "Need a hand?" A giant hand comes smashing through the wall and
> scoops up Spike and Carly and pulls them out of the building to safety.
Or perhaps something along the lines of Marvel #1, where neither
Autobots or Decepticons would automatically care about the humans. The
last half of that comic is full of cultural shock, without too much
exposition. In the scene above I can almost see the camera closing on
the Autobot symbol, so that the more stupid audience will come to the
conclusion that Autobots are nice. I'd prefer it to be more subtle: one
of those robots get injured and hides in your garage. Would you help
it?
The "Iron Man" arc (#33 and #34) comes to mind. In that story, the
Transformers are very detached from humans, which does make them more
real. Mirage goes around the boy's house without a word - he doesn't
have to say he's a spy in other to get the message through. The
Decepticons attack without a word, assassins as they are. Only Jazz
give the boy information enough so that he can feel a little safe - and
yet the final scene on #33 where he kidnaps the boy ("hey, little boy,
get inside", and them SLAM the door) is quite disturbing. I think this
is very true to what could be a movie comcept - alien robots in
disguise, in war with each other. Maybe they can make Optimus the
supreme good-guy and all that, but the regular Autobots, in order to
make up for believable characters, are just as flawed as any human
trying to do good.
And all that goes against the G1 cartoon, which is why I can understand
those "go watch the DVDs" comments.
Parallax
>
> Greenboy wrote:
> > It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
> > > a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
> > > have it with a heavy focus on humans.
> >
> > Not that I don't appreciate the attempt, (and they may actually stylishly
> > pull it off), but I think that some things just belong in their original
> > format that made them great to begin with. The one thing that I'm worried
> > about is the dialogue of the 'bots. I don't want them to appear sub-human,
> > (meaning "Prime... me kill Prime"), and not be able to be reasoned with or
> > have intelligent conversations *with* the humans.
>
> Why would you think their dialog will be sub-human?? I mean, after Star
> Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Robocop and so many others I believe
> Hollywood can come up with quite a few "believable" intelligent robots.
>
That was always part of the appeal for me - while the 'cons often spoke
like cliched, over-the-top villains, the 'bots acted more human than the
humans did sometimes.
<<<
Brawn: "Stifle it Huffer! Or I'll put my foot-io in your audio."
---
Wheeljack: "Let's see how he likes my new shock cannon." *BLAM* "That's
a shock, alright."
---
Jazz: "You better stop saving us, Inferno, we're starting to foam at the
mouth."
>>>
As long as they don't give the TFs totally alien personalities, they can
easily provide the human-type interaction they want. If they need to
save money, have them spend a little more time in non-CGI vehicular
mode.
--
Replace '???????' with 'prodigy' to email me.
Parallax
Oh, and Megatron has to call humans "flesh creatures" at least once, or
I'll be really disappointed.
Ka Faraq Gatri
<michae...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From Don Murphy's latest post at his message board, not really anything
>new being reported.
>
>http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4762
>
>Basically, Steven Speilberg is busy promoting "War of the Worlds,"
>Michael Bay is still working on the final cut of "The Island," and the
>TF script is still being re-written.
>
>And here's a quote about what to expect from the movie:
>
>> if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
>> each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out. This does
>> NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation.
Oh, so the TFs in the movie are going to be giant animatronic robots
rather than CGI? Thank Primus! So let's the the 40' Prime prop
already! :-) (Sorry, but no film in which the starring characters are
CGI has a right to be called "live-action" IMO.)
>> The film
>> we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
>> robot war among them.
Is this a story decision, or a "tight budget" decision? If the
TFs aren't the focus, why should I go watch it? I'm not a big fan of
CGI, so the effects aren't a selling point. The story would draw me
into the theater, and this revelation isn't promising.
Dave Connell aka Ka Faraq Gatri
kfg...@rcn.com
"Any day we create this much shrapnel
is a good one." - Jamie Hyneman, "Mythbusters"
"Of course we're going to _try_ to blow it up.
That's what we do." - Adam Savage, "Mythbusters"
Thunder, Agent '005
> The next thing you know, they'll rewrite it that humans MADE the TFs, and
> they just became smart and began fighting with each other.
Don't give them ideas! :)
t.k.
David Willis
""Beauty Personified"" <cjc...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7Ufwe.54005$Ph4.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "Greenboy" <mrb...@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yea, but everyone *except* the true fans will love it, you watch. It'll
>> become fashionable for a few months, then all of a sudden there'll be all
>> kinds of "die-hard" fans popping up. I can't wait to see this newsgroup
>> at
>> that point. Kind of like Star Wars; Episode I. All of a sudden EVERYONE
>> was a Star Wars fan. Dollars to doughnuts that's what's going to happen
>> with Transformers. That's my rant for the day.
>
> It's gonna be very interesting on ATT once the previews for the movie
> start popping up. I wonder what effect it will have on ATTCM and RTTM? I
> might have to return to RTTM if a horde of trolls attacks ATT. Hopefully,
> others will join me in my retreat. :-) Actually, the more I think about
> what effect the movie will have on ATT, the more scared I get. :-[
I think Usenet is pretty safe from any influx of new people.
--David
www.shortpacked.com
Aaron F. Bourque
> paul wrote:
> >
> > Simple plot for a live action is to take MTMTE and make a film of it. What's
> > wrong with that.
>
> It'd be ridiculously expensive not to mention completely defeating the
> purpose of doing a live action movie. What you want is an animated
> movie, which is NOT WHAT THIS IS.
I disagree that it would defeat the purpose of doing a live action
movie, but, yeah, it *would* be very expensive, and even if not, it'd
probably be really difficult.
But if they just make them a vague threat or the cause of mysterious
events around the humans (who are the only sympathetic characters aside
from, say, Bumblebee or Wheelie), then there's no point for me to see
it in the theaters.
Krypto
affordable to do the likes of MTMTE. I don't think its a smart
marketing idea as I do think a certain level of human involvement in
the plot will be required in order for it to suceed. I just don't buy
the excuses about expense and "This is a live action movie not an
animation". Its patronising and quite frankly, doesn't hold that much
weight. MTMTE would not make a very good movie (In my opinion at least)
- it was designed as a kids cartoon introduction and wouldn't appeal to
enough movie-goers to make it a success.
Wanting to have a substantial TF involvement in a TF movie is not an
absurd request. Nor is it the same as wanting an animated movie. It
would be possible to play up the "Robots in Disguise" gimmick and have
a section of the movie with some TF's in vehicle mode if there was a
need to cut down on CGI footage. Surely the important thing about any
movie is getting a good story across. Abandoning an idea because it
might be too costly is not a good place to start and shows a distinct
lack of ambition. If the justification for decisions on the movie turn
out to be: "We didn't want it to be an animation" I will not be
impressed. If they want to produce a good story that appeals to a broad
audience I could accept it, it doesn't sound like a cop out.
Mark Brown
news:11c34ac...@corp.supernews.com...
>> It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for
>> a live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to
>> have it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to
>> making it live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive
>> to do otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll
> be.
> Therein lies the problem. TF wasn't about humans living with robots, it
> was
> about the robots.
And if we ~make~ the movie about robots, with no human involvement, it might
as well ~be~ _Robots_II_.
> I'm sure others would agree that we'd rather have no live action movie
> than
> a "It's all human, and oh, here's a TF in the background" type deal. This
> isn't X-Men, or Batman where the focus is on a human character.
No, it's about Transformers, who switch modes to Earth vehicles (and
equipment) in order to function secretly. On Earth. A planet populated by
humans. Humans who don't know (A) that aliens exist, (B) that said aliens
are cybernetic, not organic, (C) that said aliens are among us.
It's about aliens who are robots, but act like "people." How are we to
establish that (for a non-Transfan audience, which this movie ~must~ appeal
to if it is to be successful) if we don't have some non-robot people for the
TFs to interact with? Without humans, the human-like Transformers could be
dismissed as anthropomorphism, like in The_Lion_King. When you put the
human-like TFs alongside the humans and show them acting the same way (in a
serious, non-Disney's-talking-animals movie), it establishes the level of
verisimillitude.
The very existence of Transformers violates so many things that modern
humans (like the folks going to see the movie) take for granted. It's
~necessary~ to establish that this movie takes place in the real world (as
opposed to a fully fictionalized world, like Star Wars or Star Trek).
See, what Murphy, and DeSanto, and Spielberg, and Rogers, and all the others
are trying to do is set up a situation where, when the audience sees its
first Transformer, people will go all bug-eyed and say "OH MY FREAKIN'
WOW!!" They want it to be big, and memorable, and dramatically satisfying,
as well they should. It's what filmmakers refer to as a "reveal."
Now, look back at G1. What's the first thing we see? Wheeljack & Bumblebee,
in all their typical, cartoon glory. They transform within a few seconds,
and we're introduced to the concept. There are no OMFW moments in MTMTE.
When the Ark wakes up, we get a good long look around, establishing that
yes, this is our world, and then we're thrown back into the
Autobot/Decepticon war.
The trick to making a reveal work is that it starts with something ordinary
and mundane, and spirals into OMFW territory. It's that "mode shift"
(between normal-mode and sci-fi-mode) that gives it impact.
> If left as a human movie, we can pretty much guess how it'll go:
> Scene: Refinery plant (or similar hard-hat workplace) Spike (Buster?)
> Witwicky is dreaming about the new intern secretary in the main office,
> Carly.
*SNIP*
> .... or something like that. =)
I recently posted this on Murphy's boards. . .
(With some minor editing and addition.)
The movie starts with a young soldier (a discipline problem, a
hair's-breadth away from being court-marshalled) being tapped (by a Col.
Marissa Fairebourne) for a "special" unit. It turns out that the qualities
that make "Spike" a discipline problem are just what they're looking for.
Elsewhere, a young scientist (perhaps Carly) is tracking a meteorite. She
arrives a day or so after the impact, and is stunned to discover traces of a
battle. When she returns her report, she's greeted by a team of governmental
"Men in Black" --who happen to be Marissa & Spike. They appropriate
everything she's found, except for a small item that she manages to hide.
Marissa & Spike analyze the "alien" technology, in the process revealing the
EDC's own back-engineered tech (including magnetically-polarized
armour-piercing bullets that'll work against the alien metal).
That night, Carly is fuming when someone knocks at her door. She opens it
just in time to see a white Porsche (Jazz) peeling away. She looks down and
finds a package. Opening it, she finds a cellphone. It rings, and she
answers, hearing a gravelly voice. He claims to be attached to the special
agents who visited her earlier. There's a certain item that they're missing,
that he knows is in her possession. She confronts him, and he grudgingly
promises an explanation, if she meets him at a certain location with the
artifact.
Meanwhile, the soldiers are realizing that something's missing, and Marissa
& Spike go back to search the lab. Warrants? They don't need 'em. Post-9/11.
(Spike points out that they're UN, not American, and Marissa hands him a
fake FBI ID).
Later, Carly returns to her lab to retrieve the whatever, while a yellow VW
(or whatever) is parked down the street (Bumblebee's voice reports that
she's arrived, but that something wierd's going on inside the building; they
may've been compromised). Inside, she hears someone searching around in the
dark. She demands they show themselves, and a sleek black robo-panther
stalks out of the shadows and snarls at her.
Carly panics and runs, encountering Spike and Marissa in another part of the
building (Ravage is taking his time, stalking her --like the velociraptors
in JP). Ravage catches up, and Marissa pulls out her gun (with the EDC's new
bullets) and holds off Ravage while Spike & Carly escape. Ravage is lightly
wounded and dispatches Marissa (no more playing; he's p*ssed), then chases
the others outside. Spike & Carly are intercepted and picked up by a
driverless, talking, yellow VW. The car peels out, Ravage chasing them, and
runs through an action-packed chase sequence as they flee to an empty
factory (away from prying civillian eyes). Soundwave (as a helicopter?)
arrives and the trio are cornered, until a red semi smashes into the scene,
and we're treated to our first eye-popping look at a transformation &
small-scale battle.
Mark
"The huge three-way Autobot/Decepticon/EDC battle happens later."
Brian Kilby
>
> I think Usenet is pretty safe from any influx of new people.
Pretty much. Unless Google starts including Usenet groups in their
standard web search results, ATT is pretty much safe from Neo TFTM fallout.
--
Brian Kilby
Brian...@gmail.com
http://www.briankilby.com
http://www.tfradio.com
ShadowWing
"Parallax" wrote
>
> Oh, and Megatron has to call humans "flesh creatures" at least once, or
> I'll be really disappointed.
Or "fleshlings".
--
updated before I die:
The Transformation Zone
http://pages.cthome.net/ShadowWing
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> The movie starts with a young soldier (a discipline problem, a
> hair's-breadth away from being court-marshalled) being tapped (by a Col.
> Marissa Fairebourne) for a "special" unit.
Arbitrary nitpick: Marissa Faireborn has two canonical ranks, and
neither them is Colonel, dangit! It irked me enough that Dreamwave has
her as "Commander," we don't needs no more of that. Captain was her
original rank, and so it should remain.
-Kil
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> David Willis wrote:
> >
> > I think Usenet is pretty safe from any influx of new people.
>
> Pretty much. Unless Google starts including Usenet groups in their
> standard web search results, ATT is pretty much safe from Neo TFTM fallout.
I'd probably still expect some small number of those new folks finding
their way to ATT, though certainly nowhere near to the levels likely
for the webboards.
-Kil
Ethan Hammond
news:AVLve.1809530$Xk.1538215@pd7tw3no...
> Kil - Michael McCarthy wrote:
>
>>>if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
>>>each other, buy the dvds that are out or coming out. This does
>>>we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
>>>robot war among them.
>
Yes that statement actually fills me with worry rather
than relief. But then again it was written by the genius
behind Catwoman and the Core.
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Ethan Hammond
"David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n5Yve.1403$GH6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...> news:34Yve.107229$El.106749@pd7tw1no...
>
>> >This does
>> >NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation.
>
>> reports say it is... I KNOW it's a live-action film! Or does he mean it's
>> going to be a special fx extravaganza first and some kind of threadbare
>> story second?
>
> He's saying that all the things people are demanding only work in
> animation, and will not play well in a live-action film, which they are
> making.
Unless they got ILM or somebody really good at SFX.
Ethan Hammond
>
> I got the impression that he was talking more about the plot, and that it
> would be more from the humans point of view. That is, how the humans deal
> when a sudden war between giant robots erupts around them. I surely hope
> that's not the case. Having some perspective from one or two humans (e.g.
> Sparkplug, Spike) is fine, but the main perspective should be from the
> Transformers, if it's to truly be a "Transformers movie".
The whole movie will be Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning hiding in
a basement yelling at each other for no reason while we assume
the Autobots and Decepticons are having this awesome big battle
in the city above that we don't get to ever see.
Ethan Hammond
news:yXHwe.2010$394...@fe07.lga...
> David Willis wrote:
>
>> I think Usenet is pretty safe from any influx of new people.
>
> Pretty much. Unless Google starts including Usenet groups in their
> standard web search results, ATT is pretty much safe from Neo TFTM
> fallout.
They do include them. You just have to search for the right thing or
the right amount of pages.
Ethan Hammond
news:AfednfMNQa3...@adelphia.com...
> Krypto wrote:
>> I gotta agree, what does Murphy expect the fans to want?
>
> It seems that allot of fans want MTMTE in CGI, which isn't feasible for a
> live action movie. To make a live action movie like this you HAVE to have
> it with a heavy focus on humans. Otherwise there's no point to making it
> live action not to mention that it would just be too expensive to do
> otherwise. The sooner people understand this the better off we'll be.
Unless you are George Lucas. Then you can have five people
and all CGI!
Ethan Hammond
news:42c2e...@news.cybersurf.net...
> "paul" <pa...@NOSPAM2khiway.net> wrote in message
> news:11c34ac...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "The huge three-way Autobot/Decepticon/EDC battle happens later."
Basically the first movie is just a set up for the likely superior second
movie.
Ethan Hammond
> Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
>
> Maybe they're concerned about spending too much money and so are limiting
> the animation time on-film and using the Humans to fill the spaces
> in-between? That would be my bet...
The actors salaries for the humans will probably end up being more
than the CGI the way it sounds like they are headed. It would be
better if they just got the G1 voices and spent more money on the
TF SFX rather than big name actors to play the human leads.
Ethan Hammond
> paul wrote:
>
>> Simple plot for a live action is to take MTMTE and make a film of it.
>> What's
>> wrong with that.
>
> It'd be ridiculously expensive not to mention completely defeating the
> purpose of doing a live action movie. What you want is an animated movie,
> which is NOT WHAT THIS IS.
Although so much is animated in live action movies anymore that there
is almost no difference. No one calls Episode III an animated movie,
even though that is the same as what you are saying.
Ethan Hammond
news:jkh3c111pbkikdjmp...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jun 2005 17:45:48 -0700, "Kil - Michael McCarthy"
> <michae...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, so the TFs in the movie are going to be giant animatronic robots
> rather than CGI? Thank Primus! So let's the the 40' Prime prop
> already! :-) (Sorry, but no film in which the starring characters are
> CGI has a right to be called "live-action" IMO.)
40' transforming Prime prop at that. *nods nods*
>>> The film
>>> we have always been doing is based on humans dealing with a
>>> robot war among them.
>
> Is this a story decision, or a "tight budget" decision? If the
> TFs aren't the focus, why should I go watch it? I'm not a big fan of
> CGI, so the effects aren't a selling point. The story would draw me
> into the theater, and this revelation isn't promising.
No it isn't. They need to make it about Transformers, not just another
generic Hollywood action movie. The box office is doing the worst
it has in 12 years so obviously people are tired of the formula. DVD
sales are down too for the first time in 8 years. People who go to
see a TF movie are going to go see it for CGI Optimus Prime, not
Tom Cruise or whoeever they get to play the lead human.
I would rather they just did a big budget CGI animated TF
movie to be honest if they are going to have this kind of attitude
about it.
Ethan Hammond
news:WgIwe.1206$4m3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Parallax" wrote
>
>> Oh, and Megatron has to call humans "flesh creatures" at least once, or
>> I'll be really disappointed.
>
> Or "fleshlings".
Yep that is what I like him to say!
David Willis
"Krypto" <kry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120074288.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Having recently watched Sin City I have to disagree, Its possible and
> affordable to do the likes of MTMTE.
MTMTE is no Sin City.
--David
MTMTE was freakin' crap. 3-part bore-fest.
www.itswalky.com
Krypto
make a miserable movie. The point with Sin City is that it was almost
all Green screen CGI & Prosthetics. Whats to stop a similar (albeit
lower budget) TF movies. Surely the selling point of a Transformers
movie has got to be the Transformers and not the human scenes.
Thunder, Agent '005
> The actors salaries for the humans will probably end up being more
> than the CGI the way it sounds like they are headed. It would be
> better if they just got the G1 voices and spent more money on the
> TF SFX rather than big name actors to play the human leads.
TOM CRUISE
A Steven Spielberg Production
A Michael Bay Film
Transformers...
Blech! :)
t.k.
Autobus Prime
Actually, the humans' reaction to the giant robots was used
to start the comic rolling, and it wasn't until the readers were
familiar with the somewhat alien ways of the Transformers that
they switched to stories that left the humans mostly out. Maybe
there could be no Furman without Budiansky!
The cartoon, on the other hand, just dropped us into the
number one Transformer concern, which was their fuel shortage.
That worked pretty well too, come to think of it. I mean,
when I look in the top drawer of my dresser I sometimes find
myself thinking 'There's not enough clean socks in here to
last a quartex!' No matter who you are, scarcity of resources
is a definite human worry -- no matter what those resources
are, too.
Maybe the lack of mortality or an analogous concept is the
sticking point. This makes them like the Tolkien elves, who
can be killed, but don't get sick and don't die of old age.
Didn't Tolkien write that we find immortality fascinating only
against a backdrop of our own mortality?
I don't know if it's so hard to 'do giant robots' and care.
Maybe if they were ASEA assembly-line robots it would be. Heh.
Cordially yours,
Autobus Prime
w/minicon Farebox
www.geocities.com/autobus_prime
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Krypto" <kry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120074288.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Having recently watched Sin City I have to disagree, Its possible and
>> affordable to do the likes of MTMTE.
>
> MTMTE is no Sin City.
Its better, BETTER! Does Sin City have Hauler?
I think NOT!
> --David
> MTMTE was freakin' crap. 3-part bore-fest.
Booo! Too bad they got that fat faced girl from 2 Fast 2 Furious
to be Miho, and now she is going to play Kasumi in DOA, BOOOO!
Ethan Hammond
Basically that is what is going to happen,
or maybe TOM CRUISE, KATIE HOLMES,
oh yay!
Autobus Prime
> >> if you want Giant Robots that do NOT exist in reality bashing
> >> NOT constitute a live action FILM, this is animation.
>
> rather than CGI? Thank Primus! So let's the the 40' Prime prop
> already! :-) (Sorry, but no film in which the starring characters are
> CGI has a right to be called "live-action" IMO.)
Oooooo! Claymation! I want Claymation! Or puppets!
Transformers: THUNDERBIRDS....heh heh...
Or make it like Scramble City 2...
Ethan Hammond
news:1120147820.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That might be pretty awesome with a bigger budget.
Pyre
>
> Unless they got ILM or somebody really good at SFX.
>
...and an unlimited budget. This isn't like Star Wars where Lucas is
funding the film out of his own pocket, owns the FX company and can do
whatever he wants. They simply CAN NOT do a movie that's 90%
Transformers and 10% humans. At the very most I would expect 50/50.
--
Pyre[Rock] - pyres...@crosswinds.net
http://pyresdomain.crosswinds.net/
"If you think it's over better think again. There'll be no compromise.
Turning up the power, feel adrenaline, move into overdrive."
Krypto
the first Star Wars film people told him it couldn't be done the
effects aint possible and it would all be too expensive - but it was
done and it was possible and in my opinion it was great.
To state straight off the bat that you can't do something just sounds
like a total lack of ambition. Computer Technology may still be
expensive (and relatively time consuming). But the facts are simple -
they are going to need some special effects in this movie, without them
its gonna tank. Who will be happy seeing a Transformers movie with 3
minutes of Transformer footage? Nobody! You'll find that its easier
(and I suspect cheaper) to shoot pure CGI scenes than scenes than mix
CGI and live action (which you gotta "shoot" twice and then edit
together). With that being said I can't see any sensible reason to
suggest the film can't be somewhere between 60-70% Transformer (Mixed
with live action where appropriate), 30% human/pure live action. And
with that I think I'm being generous in the pure live action bit.
But ultimately I think the story should drive this decision and any
story worth the paper its written on that is titled "Transformers" has
got to deal with the subject matter. Otherwise the audience will baulk
at it. If the story demands that the TF's are concealed for a section
of the movie - I can buy it, it plays up the disguise aspect. I don't
buy this "what you want is an animation" excuse. Its condescending in
the worst way.
Marc.
"Beauty Personified"
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> TOM CRUISE
>> A Steven Spielberg Production
>> A Michael Bay Film
>>
>> Transformers...
>>
>>
>> Blech! :)
Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
> Basically that is what is going to happen,
> or maybe TOM CRUISE, KATIE HOLMES,
> oh yay!
SAVE KATIE!!! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, FOR THE LOVE OF OG, SAVE KATIE!!!
Anyhoo...
Pyre
> Who will be happy seeing a Transformers movie with 3
> minutes of Transformer footage? Nobody!
Don't be stupid. That's not what we're going to get. But you're not
going to get the opposite either. What allot of misguided people seem
to want is all TFs all the time with very little human involvement at
all and that completely defeats the entire purpose of doing a live
action movie. To have the focus be entirely on animated characters
would be financially unfeasible not to mention really stupid for a live
action film. What those people want is an animated movie. THose people
should really just bow out now and forget this movie exists because they
just aren't going to be satisfied and will end up wasting their time as
well as the time of others.
> You'll find that its easier
> (and I suspect cheaper) to shoot pure CGI scenes than scenes than mix
> CGI and live action (which you gotta "shoot" twice and then edit
> together).
Perhaps, but if they did that then it wouldn't be a live action movie
now would it. What you want here is an animated movie and that's not
what this is.
Ethan Hammond
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
>> Unless they got ILM or somebody really good at SFX.
>
> ...and an unlimited budget. This isn't like Star Wars where Lucas is
> funding the film out of his own pocket, owns the FX company and can do
> whatever he wants. They simply CAN NOT do a movie that's 90% Transformers
> and 10% humans. At the very most I would expect 50/50.
50/50 would be fine. In all honesty they could take 30-45 minutes before
they show the first TF transform, but once that happens in needs to be
about the TF's. And then they can do the whole backstory of how they
crashed from Cybertron or whatever. Kind of like Batman Begins,
or Jaws we didn't see Batman for the first half of the movie.
Ethan Hammond
> Krypto wrote:
>
>> Who will be happy seeing a Transformers movie with 3
>> minutes of Transformer footage? Nobody!
>
> Don't be stupid. That's not what we're going to get. But you're not
> going to get the opposite either. What allot of misguided people seem to
> want is all TFs all the time with very little human involvement at all and
> that completely defeats the entire purpose of doing a live action movie.
> To have the focus be entirely on animated characters would be financially
> unfeasible not to mention really stupid for a live action film. What
> those people want is an animated movie. THose people should really just
> bow out now and forget this movie exists because they just aren't going to
> be satisfied and will end up wasting their time as well as the time of
> others.
But there are lots of movies done with no sets and all CGI so you have to
careful about that. I guess we have to wait and see when the movie comes
out. There is no reason to carry the torch for Murphy though, and there
is nothing wrong with questioning what he is doing.
Ethan Hammond
And the Autobots and Decepticons will learn peace through Scientology!
Krypto
"What you want here is an animated movie and that's not what this is. "
I find that remark insulting. No-one is asking for a 100% animated
movie, we're just saying it sounds like a lame excuse for not putting
much effort into special effects. Would you call Sin City an animated
movie or a live action movie? Its practically all special effects CGI &
green screens. Is it an animated movie? No - it isn't. The entire "what
you want is an animated movie" argument doesn't wash, it never has. I
don't want an animated movie. I want a movie that will respect
Transformers, show a decent story and not shy away from scenes with
Transformers interacting or not with day-to-day earth
occupants/objects. That is NOT an animated movie.
To repeatedly suggest that it is or that having a high percentage of
special effects would make it so is absurd. Star Wars III was NOT an
animated movie (despite being around knee deep in special effects), Sin
City was NOT an animated movie, Batman Begins was NOT an animated movie
(Gotham was basically CGI), Lord of the Rings was NOT an animated movie
(again, almost every shot used effects, whether to show hobbit size or
hordes of orcs). The Alien films, the Predator films the Terminator
films - NOT animated movies. Would you tell the writer of Terminator 2
he'd be better off doing it in animation because thats what it should
be? Of course not. In my opinion this is not a valid reason, it is an
excuse. If the movie has a great story and only a small bit of
Transformers - great. But like I've said over and over, don't make
excuses before hand. It shows an amazing lack of ambition and a lack of
respect for the audience. I will judge the film on its story and
content, I'll listen to excuses AFTER I see it, not before.
I'm sorry if I am coming across as harsh in this post, it just seems
that you are repeating Don Murphy's mantra a lot and I feel very
strongly about the Transformers and especially with a live action
movie, I want to see some effort being put into this, I don't like
hearing (in my view) weak excuses.
Marc.
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> 50/50 would be fine. In all honesty they could take 30-45 minutes before
> they show the first TF transform, but once that happens in needs to be
> about the TF's. And then they can do the whole backstory of how they
> crashed from Cybertron or whatever. Kind of like Batman Begins,
> or Jaws we didn't see Batman for the first half of the movie.
Strange, I don't remember seeing Batman in the _second_ half of Jaws
either....
Although I have seen him use his trusty Bat Shark Repellant Spray!
-Kil
Ethan Hammond
news:1120174574....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ethan Hammond wrote...
>
>> 50/50 would be fine. In all honesty they could take 30-45 minutes before
>> they show the first TF transform, but once that happens in needs to be
>> about the TF's. And then they can do the whole backstory of how they
>> crashed from Cybertron or whatever. Kind of like Batman Begins,
>> or Jaws we didn't see Batman for the first half of the movie.
>
> Strange, I don't remember seeing Batman in the _second_ half of Jaws
> either....
AHHHH! LOL
> Although I have seen him use his trusty Bat Shark Repellant Spray!
Yes and sometimes the UN gets dehydrated!
Thunder, Agent '005
>
> SAVE KATIE!!! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, FOR THE LOVE OF OG, SAVE KATIE!!!
>
Making mistakes is just a part of growing up... :) She'll learn (just
like Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and anybody else Tom Cruise has
dated/married).
t.k. (I'm just saying that because I'm jealous, natch)
"Beauty Personified"
"Beauty Personified" wrote:
>>
>> SAVE KATIE!!! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, FOR THE LOVE OF OG, SAVE KATIE!!!
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Making mistakes is just a part of growing up... :) She'll learn (just like
> Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and anybody else Tom Cruise has
> dated/married).
I'm just hoping the engagement is called off, and that there's no marriage.
IMO, Cruise is going through a mid-life crisis. (He's obviously not a victim
of chemical imbalance, since there's no such thing. ;-) Katie Holmes needs
no part of that.
> t.k. (I'm just saying that because I'm jealous, natch)
Jealous of which one? Tom or Katie? ;-)
Anyhoo...
Christopher "Beautiful" Carlson
Canada's #1 Nashville Predators Fan
"You can never have too many pucks."
http://www.livejournal.com/users/beautypersoni/
Thunder, Agent '005
>
> Jealous of which one? Tom or Katie? ;-)
Jealous that this pretty boy can get all those hot chicks! It's not
fair, dammit! (Like I'd ever have a chance at Nicole Kidman anyway ;).
t.k.
WreckGar
http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4762 . I
sort of had a bad feeling that humans were going to be the main thing in the
movie . . I was focused on Energon and Armada. And I can see from many of
the posts in here that you all do not like the thought of humans being a big
focus in the movie. So PLEASE .. . I beg you all . . post to
www.donmurphy.net If the guy took the time to call me out in one of his
rants, that proves that he reads the posts. The writers are still rewriting
. . maybe you all, or are Transformer Experts (and I do not say that
sarcastically) . . can turn the tide before they set the script in concrete.
I just hate with a capital H , the thought of a Transformers Armada on the
big screen set in real life.
WreckGar AKA Adam . .
PS
I already made a post about this before I read this thread . .so sorry about
talking about it again here . . i just have that hyper worried feeling and
really want all of you more informed guys/gals to sign up at donmurphy.net
He said that transformers bashing each other was not the point, and that if
I wanted that to buy the DVDs . . but excuse me . . Transformers bashing
each other is EXACTLY THE POINT . . humans were never a central roll in this
mythology . . I don't think. But this is why I wish many of you were on the
board.
gem...@tpg.com.au
<esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:DwUwe.1839563$6l.770839@pd7tw2no...
>> TOM CRUISE
>> A Steven Spielberg Production
>> A Michael Bay Film
>>
>> Transformers...
>>
>>
>> Blech! :)
>
>Basically that is what is going to happen,
>or maybe TOM CRUISE, KATIE HOLMES,
HALLE BERRY
Aaron F. Bourque
> "Mark Brown" <mark....@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
> news:42c2e...@news.cybersurf.net...
> > "paul" <pa...@NOSPAM2khiway.net> wrote in message
> > news:11c34ac...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mark
> > "The huge three-way Autobot/Decepticon/EDC battle happens later."
>
> Basically the first movie is just a set up for the likely superior second
> movie.
You realize there won't be a second movie if the first movie bombs,
yes?
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; not saying it *will*, just warning
you . . .
paul
>
> > Who will be happy seeing a Transformers movie with 3
> > minutes of Transformer footage? Nobody!
>
> Don't be stupid. That's not what we're going to get. But you're not
> going to get the opposite either.
> Perhaps, but if they did that then it wouldn't be a live action movie
> now would it. What you want here is an animated movie and that's not
> what this is.
>
Pyre, really, can you only resort to the same ol "what you want is an
animated movie" bit? You said the same thing to my post yesterday. And for
Krypto stating his feelings about a live film doesn't make him stupid
either.
Yes, everyone knows this isn't a film for FANS, it has to appeal to
everyone. So I, or anyone on this newsgroup have to realize that we're most
likely NOT going to get what we want out of it. Me? I want a high-action,
lots of explosions, and TRANSFORMING ROBOTS!!!! I don't want a love story, I
don't want a feel-good movie, I want ACTION! That'll make me feel good.....
wait, wouldn't that make it a feel good movie????? Ok, so it can be a feel
good movie, just as long as it's full of explosions and TRANSFORMING ROBOTS!
paul
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2xZwe.374363$cg1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 50/50 would be fine. In all honesty they could take 30-45 minutes before
> they show the first TF transform, but once that happens in needs to be
> about the TF's. And then they can do the whole backstory of how they
> crashed from Cybertron or whatever. Kind of like Batman Begins,
> or Jaws we didn't see Batman for the first half of the movie.
30-45 minutes? I'd probably get up and leave if I had to wait that long to
see a Transformer transform. Batman Begins is different, as the focus is on
his origin. But Bruce Wayne is in the 1st half right? (no, haven't seen the
movie) or Jaws, where you were supposed to be scared NOT seeing the shark
until they wanted you to see it. It was still going around eating people.
Paul
cap...@godisdead.com
> He said that transformers bashing each other was not the point, and that if
> I wanted that to buy the DVDs . . but excuse me . . Transformers bashing
> each other is EXACTLY THE POINT . . humans were never a central roll in this
> mythology . . I don't think. But this is why I wish many of you were on the
> board.
Go read the Marvel comics, and you'll find plenty of human interaction
AND central role in the mythology. Should you dismiss them because you
haven't read or because you just don't like them, then you have no
right to say you know what *exactly the point* it is, and at best your
reasoning sounds fanboyish.
Pyre
>
> But there are lots of movies done with no sets and all CGI so you have to
> careful about that.
I would imagine that there's a difference between a CGI set and a fully
animated character. Especially when you have ~10 of those characters.
Pyre
>
> Strange, I don't remember seeing Batman in the _second_ half of Jaws
> either....
>
He's just that sneaky. :-)
Pyre
>
> I just hate with a capital H , the thought of a Transformers Armada on the
> big screen set in real life.
I don't think we'll be getting THAT. Any human involvement will likely
be of the adult variety. Maybe A teenager but I don't think you'll have
little kids hanging out with the Transformers like you do in Armada,
Energon or Cybertron.
Switchback
I can think of very few comics that *weren't* focused around the
Transformers. Sure, I'll give you Shooting Star and the first two
Headmasters, and maybe Spike's little Cerebros drama. Considering the
amount of G1 comics made, that's not too much. Sparkplug and Buster's
stories were side-plots at best. Most of the time, the Transformers
dominated the panels. All things that really made a difference to the
plot involved the TFs and I'm sure if you could find a ratio there is
more TF involvement then human.
The entire *point* of the comics was to sell Transformers.
Both the comic and the cartoon introduced the TFs first and I think
that most of us understand that they can't do that in the live action
movie. But if the emphasis strays from "transformers bashing
eachother" (as WreckGar so eloquently put) then the entire point has
been lost. It's called "Transformers" and that's what it's about.
I say, introduce them slowly then go wild.
-Switchback ;)
WreckGar
apology . . I guess I just need to chill out and wait and see. None of
Murphy's movies have been kiddy movies so far . . so I am remaining
hopefull. And War of the Worlds was surprising . . hopefully all three big
names stay in that mindset . . or 4??
Speilberg, Dreamworks, Bay, Murphy? Or does Dreamworks count as Spielberg?
:)
WreckGar
WreckGar
quoting him.
WreckGar
gem...@tpg.com.au
wrote:
[The upcoming movie]
>You realize there won't be a second movie if the first movie bombs,
>yes?
I thought the first movie *did* bomb...
-SteveD
Ethan Hammond
news:1120224932....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
>> > Mark
>> > "The huge three-way Autobot/Decepticon/EDC battle happens later."
>
>> Basically the first movie is just a set up for the likely superior second
>> movie.
>
> You realize there won't be a second movie if the first movie bombs,
> yes?
>
> Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; not saying it *will*, just warning
> you . . .
Then Don Murphy had better not fail us! And maybe in 2026 there will
be another movie if this one bombs.
Ethan Hammond
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
>> But there are lots of movies done with no sets and all CGI so you have to
>> careful about that.
>
> I would imagine that there's a difference between a CGI set and a fully
> animated character. Especially when you have ~10 of those characters.
But Star Wars!
Ethan Hammond
did it similar to Man of Iron that would be a really badass and
deep movie.
ShadowWing
"Ethan Hammond" wrote
> "Pyre" wrote
>
> > I would imagine that there's a difference between a CGI set and a fully
> > animated character. Especially when you have ~10 of those characters.
>
> But Star Wars!
Or "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".
--
updated before I die:
The Transformation Zone
http://pages.cthome.net/ShadowWing
ShadowWing
"Brian Kilby" wrote
> David Willis wrote:
> >
> > I think Usenet is pretty safe from any influx of new people.
>
> Pretty much. Unless Google starts including Usenet groups in their
> standard web search results, ATT is pretty much safe from Neo TFTM
fallout.
Sometimes the newsreader sites like Google news will come up if you
search for a topic that happens to have a Usenet discussion attached, so it
depends on how far down the list the person is willing to go.
ShadowWing
"Ethan Hammond" wrote
>
> Booo! Too bad they got that fat faced girl from 2 Fast 2 Furious
> to be Miho, and now she is going to play Kasumi in DOA, BOOOO!
Who did what now?
Pyre
>
> But Star Wars!
>
Star Wars didn't have the budget constraints that normal movies have.
cap...@godisdead.com
> I can think of very few comics that *weren't* focused around the
> Transformers. Sure, I'll give you Shooting Star and the first two
> Headmasters, and maybe Spike's little Cerebros drama. Considering the
> amount of G1 comics made, that's not too much. Sparkplug and Buster's
> stories were side-plots at best.
Not really. Consider the #1-#12 run:
the first encounter in the drive-in and Bumblebee's rescue
the earth fuel conversion and the kidnap of Sparkplug
the Matrix transfer and the following partership of Buster and Ratchet
Josie Beller / Circuit Breaker
G.B. Blackrock and his factories and installations
Those were not side-plots, as Bomber-Bill, the Mechanic and Charlene
were, for example. The facts above actually defined the course of the
line. Issues #5-#7 do not give that much of an incentive to buy toys
other than a damn good story arc.
> Most of the time, the Transformers
> dominated the panels. All things that really made a difference to the
> plot involved the TFs and I'm sure if you could find a ratio there is
> more TF involvement then human.
>
> The entire *point* of the comics was to sell Transformers.
Yes, but this ratio has a curve. The human involvement is big in the
beginning, then once the characters are well known, the focus switches
between the war itself and its impact in this world. It was much more
than scared humans running away from a factory, as we could see in
almost every cartoon. The point was about Transformers, but still we
had the III and the RAAT as the government figure, we had Circuit
Breaker as the resistance, Buster and Spike as the human factor, we had
G.B., Charlene, the Robot Master, Jessie and "O" (and "O"'s father, who
SHOULD make a cameo in this movie), the Mechanic, "HUMANS DON'T THINK",
the Vasquez family, Big Steve, Ethan Zachary, Francine's husband,
Charles Fong, Rachel Becker, Joey Slick, Brick Springstern, *all* the
Nebulans, HiQ and the NeoKnights, we had plenty. And still it "was"
focused of Transformers all the time.
For that reason I find this premature "fear and loathing" of humans in
the movie to have no grounds, and I give the comics as reference.
> Both the comic and the cartoon introduced the TFs first and I think
> that most of us understand that they can't do that in the live action
> movie. But if the emphasis strays from "transformers bashing
> eachother" (as WreckGar so eloquently put) then the entire point has
> been lost. It's called "Transformers" and that's what it's about.
Truth, but Transformers are also "Robots in Disguise". There's a very
reasonable post about this in this thread, so I won't repeat it.
> I say, introduce them slowly then go wild.
I agree.
Ethan Hammond
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
>> But Star Wars!
>
> Star Wars didn't have the budget constraints that normal movies have.
Do we know what the budge for the new TF movie is?
Ethan Hammond
news:hcwxe.6674$RC6....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ethan Hammond" wrote
>>
>> Booo! Too bad they got that fat faced girl from 2 Fast 2 Furious
>> to be Miho, and now she is going to play Kasumi in DOA, BOOOO!
>
> Who did what now?
The asian girl from 2 Fast 2 Furious who is also Miho in Sin City will be
Kasumi in the upcoming Dead or Alive movie, although she dosen't look
anything like Kasumi and isn't cute or attractive at all IMO.
ShadowWing
"Ethan Hammond" wrote
>
> The asian girl from 2 Fast 2 Furious who is also Miho in Sin City will be
> Kasumi in the upcoming Dead or Alive movie, although she dosen't look
> anything like Kasumi and isn't cute or attractive at all IMO.
Didn't see either movie. All I know about Kasumi (only due to the fact
that she and the rest of the Dead Or Alive characters are all over G4's
programming and one sprite comic I read) is she's as cute a redhead as
computer graphics can produce. (However, I still prefer real life girls. The
only reason I call Chun Li cute is because of so many actresses who
portrayed her in ads were.)
ShadowWing
<cap...@godisdead.com> wrote
> Francine's husband,
Jake Dalrymple! :) (And yes, I did look up that last name for the
spelling.)
Pyre
>
> Do we know what the budge for the new TF movie is?
>
I don't know if they've gotten that far yet but I doubt it will be
really huge. Definitely not anywhere close to Star Wars levels though.
Ethan Hammond
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
>> Do we know what the budge for the new TF movie is?
>
> I don't know if they've gotten that far yet but I doubt it will be really
> huge. Definitely not anywhere close to Star Wars levels though.
Does Spielberg do lower budget movies?
Mark Brown
news:1120098917.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Brown wrote...
>> The movie starts with a young soldier (a discipline problem, a
>> hair's-breadth away from being court-marshalled) being tapped (by a Col.
>> Marissa Fairebourne) for a "special" unit.
> Arbitrary nitpick: Marissa Faireborn has two canonical ranks, and
> neither them is Colonel, dangit! It irked me enough that Dreamwave has
> her as "Commander," we don't needs no more of that. Captain was her
> original rank, and so it should remain.
Why the complaint? It's a promotion; colonels are higher than captains.
'Sides, captains don't usually head up covert ops teams. And this isn't the
same G1 Marissa anyway; by the very fact that she's on Earth.
Mark
"Is kinda surprised that the Spike-as-secret-agent/absence-of-Sparkplug
didn't get the big reaction."
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> "Kil - Michael McCarthy" <michae...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120098917.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Mark Brown wrote...
> >> The movie starts with a young soldier (a discipline problem, a
> >> hair's-breadth away from being court-marshalled) being tapped (by a Col.
> >> Marissa Fairebourne) for a "special" unit.
> > Arbitrary nitpick: Marissa Faireborn has two canonical ranks, and
> > neither them is Colonel, dangit! It irked me enough that Dreamwave has
> > her as "Commander," we don't needs no more of that. Captain was her
> > original rank, and so it should remain.
>
> Why the complaint? It's a promotion; colonels are higher than captains.
>
> 'Sides, captains don't usually head up covert ops teams. And this isn't the
> same G1 Marissa anyway; by the very fact that she's on Earth.
Hey, I said up front that it was an arbitrary nitpick. : )
-Kil
Greenboy
> >> Do we know what the budge for the new TF movie is?
> >
> > I don't know if they've gotten that far yet but I doubt it will be
really
> > huge. Definitely not anywhere close to Star Wars levels though.
>
> Does Spielberg do lower budget movies?
>
unless he knows it can be done right. But define "right" in this case. If
they hand him the script and say "this is how it's should be done" is he
going to know any better? There again, ol Stevie's due another blockbuster
hit in theaters. Maybe this'll be it.
...I still think the 'bots should drive the plotline and the humans should
be secondary, albeit important, peripheral characters. I'm not going to
stress, but dammit, if you're going to do something based on something, why
not try to make it as much like the source which made it good in the first
place? Am I missing something? In other words; If it ain't broke, don't
fix it. In this case I refer to the story-line. There again, it could be
argued that Transformers belong in animation only.
Ehh. I'll decide when I see the first promotional trailers and
commercials. There's a fine line to be walked here. In my *OPINION* I
still think that Don Murphy is getting too much pressure from the studio to
make this film a certain way they *think* will be more "marketable" while,
on the other hand, he knows what he *wants* to do. I've read his posting
boards and my, (again note the use of the word), *OPINION* is that the guy
is a first class moron who loves to speak cryptically and gets off on
getting fans rialed. I just don't like the man from what I've seen. I
could have a totally wrong impression... but it's still the impression I'm
getting.
Anyway, there's my 2-cents. Again.
Greenboy
Pyre
>>
>>I don't know if they've gotten that far yet but I doubt it will be really
>>huge. Definitely not anywhere close to Star Wars levels though.
>
>
> Does Spielberg do lower budget movies?
>
I wouldn't say it'll be low budget either. But I doubt it'll be much
bigger than most movies of this calibur.
Greenboy
> bigger than most movies of this calibur.
>
> --
when Freddy Vs. Jason came out. Not quite Star Wars proportions, but not at
Neverending Story part 3 levels either. 8^)
Greenboy