Transmorphers 2: ROTF
Ken from Chicago
Just a blur to the eye
"Transformers"?
No, that's just a lie!
With the millions of dollars spent and all the time and energy spent on
TRANSFORMERS and TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, would it have killed
TPTB to have created robots that actually "transform"?
Not that blurring whirling dervish of metal seen in those two movies but
actual transformation of object to robot--where we can actually see how one
part moves to another, is transformed from one use to another?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdARFaNLM7E
Instead we get bunch of whirring moving metal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsM6zTFm6JQ&NR=1
At least the cartoon had the excuse of a lack of budget and computer fx back
in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx457jdwhM0&NR=1
-- Ken from Chicago
Edward McArdle
Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Possibly because it is actually impossible?
(Although in Man with the Golden Gun the villain apparently really had a
(prop) cigarette lighter which could be transformed into a gun!)
--
Edward McArdle
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> In article <cbWdnRWIbcF6197XnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@giganews.com>, "Ken from
> Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Transmorphers
> >Just a blur to the eye
> >"Transformers"?
> >No, that's just a lie!
>
> >With the millions of dollars spent and all the time and energy spent on
> >TRANSFORMERS and TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, would it have killed
> >TPTB to have created robots that actually "transform"?
>
> >Not that blurring whirling dervish of metal seen in those two movies but
> >actual transformation of object to robot--where we can actually see how one
> >part moves to another, is transformed from one use to another?
>
>
>
>
> >in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
> >"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
>
>
>
> Possibly because it is actually impossible?
>
> (Although in Man with the Golden Gun the villain apparently really had a
> (prop) cigarette lighter which could be transformed into a gun!)
Wasn't it the lighter *and* the cigarette case?
Jon Schild
They weren't interested in making a technically feasable movie, only in
taking money from people who aren't too discrening in their viewing habits.
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Anim8rFSK
<46a86501-d4de-4ba9...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:17�am, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > In article <cbWdnRWIbcF6197XnZ2dnUVZ hSdn...@giganews.com>, "Ken from
> > Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >Transmorphers
> > >Just a blur to the eye
> > >"Transformers"?
> > >No, that's just a lie!
> >
> > >With the millions of dollars spent and all the time and energy spent on
> > >TRANSFORMERS and TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, would it have
> > >killed
> > >TPTB to have created robots that actually "transform"?
> >
> > >Not that blurring whirling dervish of metal seen in those two movies but
> > >actual transformation of object to robot--where we can actually see how
> > >one
> > >part moves to another, is transformed from one use to another?
> >
> >
> > >Instead we get bunch of whirring moving metal:
> >
> >
> > >At least the cartoon had the excuse of a lack of budget and computer fx
> > >back
> > >in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
> > >"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
> >
> >
> > >-- Ken from Chicago
> >
> > Possibly because it is actually impossible?
> >
> > (Although in Man with the Golden Gun the villain apparently really had a
> > (prop) cigarette lighter which could be transformed into a gun!)
>
> Wasn't it the lighter *and* the cigarette case?
And pen, etc. etc. etc.
He had all the parts hidden on him, and just assembled it.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> In article
> <46a86501-d4de-4ba9-b305-1558a173b...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Forgot about the pen (lol). I thought I'd lost what little was left
of my mind when he said it was the lighter (I *have* been known to
remember, vividly, things that never happened in movies and tv shows).
Anim8rFSK
<59534d61-9037-42d1...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
hee hee
He had the bullet someplace too; was it already in the pen? I mean,
getting caught with a gold bullet in your pocket *would* be sort of
suspicious.
Smokie Darling (Annie)
That's *not* my gun... oh wait, different film, so sorry
Pete B
kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> Transmorphers
> Just a blur to the eye
> "Transformers"?
> No, that's just a lie!
>
> With the millions of dollars spent and all the time and energy spent on
> TRANSFORMERS and TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, would it have killed
> TPTB to have created robots that actually "transform"?
Hang on, didn't you complain when i crossposted something about a scifi
movie to rast?
Dale Hicks
mca...@ozemail.com.au says...
> In article <cbWdnRWIbcF6197X...@giganews.com>, "Ken from
> Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >At least the cartoon had the excuse of a lack of budget and computer fx back
> >in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
> >"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
>
Then how did the toys do it?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Joseph Nebus
>In article <mcardle-2506...@192.168.1.7>,
>mca...@ozemail.com.au says...
>> In article <cbWdnRWIbcF6197X...@giganews.com>, "Ken from
>> Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >At least the cartoon had the excuse of a lack of budget and computer fx back
>> >in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
>> >"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
>>
>> Possibly because it is actually impossible?
>Then how did the toys do it?
Because when we were kids we were willing to pretend that the
two pieces of plastic meeting at a corner were ``really'' representing
a solid rectangular-prism arm for Optimus Prime and weren't actually a
flimsy nothing.
Also we were willing to pretend that you could pop the front
of a VW Bug out and turn it into spindly legs and doughy feet and call
that believable.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan
>In article <cbWdnRWIbcF6197X...@giganews.com>, "Ken from
>Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>At least the cartoon had the excuse of a lack of budget and computer fx back
>>in the '80s, but what's the excuse now for a LACK of visually credible
>>"transformation"? Especially when it's so easy to do:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx457jdwhM0&NR=1
>
>Possibly because it is actually impossible?
How about these then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPksLeCMPw
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dilUbkP-PI
Transform to robots looks pretty good, the back-to-car transforms
are a bit rushed. :)