Would you be up,for a animated 1986 TF movie REDONE IN CGI?
TigerMegatron
Keep the story,keep the voice actors sound track+music. REPLACE THE
CEL DRAWN ANIMATED WITH CGI.
Post your thoughts on this.
M D
seriousness, a majority of the hand drawn art in that movie is easily
the greatest in the entire transformers franchise. It's what makes
that movie the cult-masterpiece that it has become. I would be
absolutely horrified to see a CGI adaptation. I think this world is
CGI'ed out (Look at what CGI did to the Indiana Jones franchise!).
Even Disney went back to the much more expensive and time consuming
hand drawn movies with their last blockbuster "The Princess and the
Frog". Call me old school, but I am pretty sick of everything churned
out of Hollywood being CGI'ed to death.
-Banzai-Tron
Primus
that it's a dying art. Screw you Pixar! You killed Disney.
Travoltron
The Movie? No way.
...Also Known As Thunder
t.k.
TigerMegatron
> Redo the AKOM episodes, maybe.
> The Movie? No way.
what is AKOM abbreviated for?
TigerMegatron
wrote:
> No. It wouldn't be worth doing...
>
> t.k.
Ofcause it wouldn't be worth doing from a money making profit
situation from Hasbro's point of view.
BUT from a fans point of view this thing would be leaps & bounds
awesome.
I believe it promoted properly & given decent advertisement hasbro can
at least make some profit off it. I'd imagine decent promotions/
advertisement would consist of following. (1) air it on the hub,like
other direct to dvd movies do. (2) advertise it & sell it at
bbotcon,sdcc & ofcause every single retail chain as a normal release.
(3) maybe show it in theathres,even if it's for only 2 weeks.
(4) show commericials advertising it on TV/CABLE. (4) Advertise it on
TF new toy boxes & a page in the new IDW TF comics.
Irrellius Spamticon king of the Potato people
I wouldn't remake the original movie. Maybe make an alternate
perspective view of the assault on Autobot city, put some story to the
characters we didn't see in the movie and wondered where they were.
Settle some questions about who survived and who didn't
Chad Rushing
I think TF:TM is perfect the way it is. CGI is not inherently better
than cel animation in my opinion, and TF:TM was a very high quality
example of the latter.
- Chad
Chad Rushing
>
> > Redo the AKOM episodes, maybe.
> > The Movie? No way.
>
> what is AKOM abbreviated for?
No idea ... but it was the company that animated some of the worst
episodes of G1. When you watch several G1 episodes back-to-back,
AKOM's substandard animation is painfully obvious.
- Chad
Travoltron
Animation Korea Movie Productions
TigerMegatron
thanks
retardomontalban
As long as it proves once and for all that BRAWN IS DEAD.
...Also Known As Thunder
> As long as it proves once and for all that BRAWN IS DEAD.
He isn't. He has a "Brawn Lives" page on Facebook.
t.k.
Ka Faraq Gatri
No. Maybe if the original had been lost, and this was an attempt at a
recreation (like the lost Dr. Who episodes are sometimes replaced with
recreations on the DVDs). But there's no need to redo TFTM with CGI. A
movie isn't inherently better just because it's CGI animated rather
than traditional animation - in many cases I see a recent animated
movie and wonder what it might have looked like in cel animation.
(Answer: better)
The story would be the same, the acting would be the same, so what
point would there be in the exercise? The only way this would be even
mildly interesting as a curiosity is if Dreamworks or Mainframe did
the animation. And even then, I don't see any point.
Now, if we were talking about stop-motion using all the recent
Classics/Universe/etc movie character toys, then you're onto
something! I'd see that just for the artistry of the stop-motion.
"Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically . . . run." - the 11th Doctor, "The Eleventh Hour"
Velvet Glove
> No. I love traditional animation and I am honestly as mad as hell
> that it's a dying art. Screw you Pixar! You killed Disney.
While I agree with this, can I just point out that the original TFTM
*is* partially CGI? Not in the way we think of CGI nowadays, but for
its time it used a lot of computer animation.
Velvet Glove (who still prefers the traditionally animated parts)
Chad Rushing
>
> While I agree with this, can I just point out that the original TFTM
> *is* partially CGI? Not in the way we think of CGI nowadays, but for
> its time it used a lot of computer animation.
>
> Velvet Glove (who still prefers the traditionally animated parts)
Which parts would you consider as partial CGI? I have probably
watched the movie over 100 times in my lifetime, and I do not recall
seeing any scenes in which CGI was disguised as cel animation or what
have you, so I am sincerely curious.
On a side note, there is a Dirty Pair anime movie by Toei during that
era in which the interior of a mad scientist's headquarters looked
very similar to the interior of Unicron.
- Chad
Velvet Glove
>
> Which parts would you consider as partial CGI? I have probably
> watched the movie over 100 times in my lifetime, and I do not recall
> seeing any scenes in which CGI was disguised as cel animation or what
> have you, so I am sincerely curious.
>
The reformatting Galvatron scene is the big one, and I'm pretty sure
that some of the interiors of Unicron are CGI too. I don't think I've
got any sort of citation on this, but I can't imagine that those would
have been animated by hand. Painted by hand, maybe, but I would put
money on the lines being done by a computer.
Velvet Glove (Don't we have any 'making of' DVD extras that talk about
the animation?)
Zobovor
> While I agree with this, can I just point out that the original TFTM
> *is* partially CGI? Not in the way we think of CGI nowadays, but for
> its time it used a lot of computer animation.
I don't believe this is an accurate statement, ma'am. I remember
reading somewhere once that part of the opening titles was done with
computers, specifically the "tunnel" the camera appears to enter as it
zooms into the Transformers: the Movie logo and travels inside the
center of the letter "O" in the word "movie." (I had thought that it
was mentioned in the DVD commentary, but I just checked and the only
mention made of it is that Sue Blu liked it and that it was "ahead of
its time.")
You mention the interior scenes with Unicron or the scenes with
Galvatron's creation and I don't agree that they were done by
computers. It looks to my eyes to be highly skilled hand-drawn
animation. The early computer-animation that started showing up in
cel animation around this time had a very different look and feel—it
was very geometrically precise and looked terribly out of place when
compared to the hand-illustrated elements in the same film. Look at
Oliver and Company some time and take note of the construction
vehicles during the city sequences (I'm thinking specifically of a
scene with a cement mixer's drum barrel rotating) and you'll see what
I mean. I suspect that if one were to conduct a frame-by-frame
analysis of the Galvatron scenes in question, it wouldn't be too
difficult to pinpoint imprecisely-drawn elements that would point to
them being hand-drawn rather than computer-rendered.
Zob
No One in Particular
"Ka Faraq Gatri" <davidcon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eit60759kb9n0b46h...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:13:30 -0700 (PDT), TigerMegatron
> <TigerM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The story would be the same, the acting would be the same, so what
> point would there be in the exercise? The only way this would be even
> mildly interesting as a curiosity is if Dreamworks or Mainframe did
> the animation. And even then, I don't see any point.
I'll take this a step further; in my opinion the acting and story might be
better. Consider the three Star Wars prequels. Without the huge CGI
battles, landscapes, and backgrounds, what have you got? Not too much, to
me. I think all three of those movies suffered from having waaaay to much
CGI availability.
Brian
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
TigerMegatron
I agree with Zob,The re-formating scenes definately were not done
using CGI. If it was done using CGI,Then the reformating decepticons
would have appeared 3-D on the scene & not flat 1-D images.
Travoltron
> I don't believe this is an accurate statement, ma'am.
What he said. There was a weird "Sparkly" effect often used in the
movie for computer monitors and such. That's the only thing I can think
of that could have possibly done with computers.
> I remember
> reading somewhere once that part of the opening titles was done with
> computers, specifically the "tunnel" the camera appears to enter as it
> zooms into the Transformers: the Movie logo and travels inside the
> center of the letter "O" in the word "movie." (I had thought that it
> was mentioned in the DVD commentary, but I just checked and the only
> mention made of it is that Sue Blu liked it and that it was "ahead of
> its time.")
I remember seeing a similar (perhaps identical?) effect used as a TV
station ident prior to TF:TM. I think it ran on Saturday mornings. Not
having much luck on YouTube finding it; The closest I can find is around
3:00 here: http://youtu.be/6tzWhp5P3BQ
Travoltron
> I remember seeing a similar (perhaps identical?) effect used as a TV
> station ident prior to TF:TM. I think it ran on Saturday mornings. Not
> having much luck on YouTube finding it; The closest I can find is around
> 3:00 here: http://youtu.be/6tzWhp5P3BQ
Better link here:
http://www.retrostatic.com/videos/p803_sectionid/21/p803_fileid/112/p803_js_on/1
This is probably what I was remembering.
Velvet Glove
> Galvatron's creation and I don't agree that they were done by
> computers. It looks to my eyes to be highly skilled hand-drawn
> animation. The early computer-animation that started showing up in
> cel animation around this time had a very different look and feel—it
> was very geometrically precise and looked terribly out of place when
> compared to the hand-illustrated elements in the same film.
Ah, but that's exactly how those scenes have always struck me! When I
mentioned Unicron's interior, I was thinking of one particular scene
during the opening sequence, when you see a grid morphing about inside
him (can't think of a better way to describe it), and that just
screams CGI to me. So does the background stuff for the Galvatron
sequence.
Since I don't have time to do the frame by frame comparison and we
don't appear to have any citation for this, we may have to put it down
to differing opinion. I will grant that the absence of any mention of
CGI does support your case rather than mine though! ;)
Velvet Glove (who always took it for granted that this was how it was
done, and is surprised to learn it might not be the case)
Chad Rushing
>
> The reformatting Galvatron scene is the big one, and I'm pretty sure
> that some of the interiors of Unicron are CGI too. I don't think I've
> got any sort of citation on this, but I can't imagine that those would
> have been animated by hand. Painted by hand, maybe, but I would put
> money on the lines being done by a computer.
Unless there is some official source that says otherwise, those were
all animated by hand. I have watched many anime series from the
1980's, including robot-related ones, and many anime companies were
capable of that high level of hand-drawn animation. For example, see
AKIRA from back then and the more recent STEAM BOY by the same
director which was also entirely hand-drawn.
Remember that BW in the mid-1990's was practically cutting edge CGI,
so CGI was nowhere near that good a decade before.
- Chad
Uriel Ventris
It’s not the animation that matters, it’s the story-telling. And re-telling TFTM in a different manner wouldn’t add anything. Folks might be tempted to change things around a bit. “Greedo shot first” and all that sort of thing.
...Also Known As Thunder
> NOTE: I’ve enabled Rich-Text for this message. How does it look?
Bigger. That's about it.
t.k.
Uriel Ventris
At least we know it works. That’s always important.
Chad Rushing
>
> Ah, but that's exactly how those scenes have always struck me! When I
> mentioned Unicron's interior, I was thinking of one particular scene
> during the opening sequence, when you see a grid morphing about inside
> him (can't think of a better way to describe it), and that just
> screams CGI to me. So does the background stuff for the Galvatron
> sequence.
>
> Since I don't have time to do the frame by frame comparison and we
> don't appear to have any citation for this, we may have to put it down
> to differing opinion. I will grant that the absence of any mention of
> CGI does support your case rather than mine though! ;)
No offense intended, but Zobovor is right. It is not just a
difference of opinion but a technical (or budgetary) impossibility at
the time. For example, there are battle scenes in RETURN OF THE JEDI
which seem to modern viewers to have been impossible to create with
just scale models rather than CGI, but scale models were all that they
had back then. Remember that BEAST WARS, which looks crude to us now,
was considered pretty cutting edge nearly a decade later. Pixar did
not really get rolling until sometime after TF:TM.
> Velvet Glove (who always took it for granted that this was how it was
> done, and is surprised to learn it might not be the case)
You would be amazed at what the Japanese artists could draw by hand
during that era, what may now be a lost art. Check out the movie
AKIRA from the late 80's and the much more recent STEAM BOY by the
same director which was also completely animated by hand. It is
probably the most complex anime movie ever created without CGI.
Also, compare G1's "Call of the Primitives" to anything from Filmation
or Hanna-Barbera to see how much more skilled the Japanese were at
animating robots, technology, and such back in the 1980's. The lack
of CGI in TF:TM should make modern viewers appreciate it all the more.
- Chad