|
Milky Moor posted:However, there seemed to be something weird where the aspect ratio was changing between scenes and even between shots - letterbox bars would appear and disappear. I don't know if this was just a thing from IMax films or a problem with my cinema but it was fairly distracting. I'm sure IMAX scenes are in 16:9, my Dark Knight blu-ray keeps switching ratios. It's annoying as poo poo.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
I recommend Rescue Bots. The plots and tech invented by the humans can be silly but the writing and characters are good. There's a lot of subtle humor that goes over the intended audience's heads. My 3 year old and I catch it every week. Optimus shows up once in a while and doesn't take faces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
The existence of female transformers disturbs me greatly. Why do they even have genders at all? Why are there so many less of them? I like to think that gender is a choice - the lack of many characters choosing to be female upon arriving on Earth is telling. It's suboptimal, minimizing your privilege. I bring this up because I re-discovered the funniest thing that was ever on Newgrounds [NSFW!!!!] faint praise, I know, but still) today and it finds its own way to throw a spanner in the works of robo-gender-sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:07
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The existence of female transformers disturbs me greatly. Why do they even have genders at all? Why are there so many less of them? I like to think that gender is a choice - the lack of many characters choosing to be female upon arriving on Earth is telling. It's suboptimal, minimizing your privilege. I think in one of the relatively recent comic series female gendered transformers were the result of forcibly experimenting on and torturing male transformers? Because, y'know, that's in no way bizarre, disgusting or insulting. It's probably not something that would need to be explained, really. The Bay films are definitely strange. Initially, when the Autobots appeared more alien it was less odd that it was apparently a boy's only club because all they really had going for them were deep voices - but now that we've seen multiple with more traditionally human faces (and beards) you really begin to wonder why some of them are so obviously masculine when the only indication there have been of any females or gender division on Cybertron were the motorcycle ladies. Part of me thinks it's the privilege thing because, at the end of the day, the Autobots learned about mankind through the world wide web. And then part of my brain - the part that's familiar with mass media - sits there and goes: Wait, not one Hasbro exec. or film exec has gone 'Listen, Michael, people have criticised these films for being misogynistic, I think we should put in a female character that kicks rear end' like what seems to happen in so many other films and franchises, particularly when so many new characters are being introduced and particularly when Marky Mark's character has a daughter. It's so... odd that, in all four films, there's been, what, one female robot and the robots keep getting more and more human. quote:I bring this up because I re-discovered the funniest thing that was ever on Newgrounds [NSFW!!!!] faint praise, I know, but still) today and it finds its own way to throw a spanner in the works of robo-gender-sexuality. oh my loving god hahaha Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:In Transformers Prime wasn't Nemesis Prime a drone duplicate of Prime built and controlled by humans? In TF: Prime that's the case, but there's plenty of other universes where Nemesis Prime is an evil sentient clone of Optimus, or just a straight up corrupted version of Optimus Prime himself. I'm hoping for the latter. quote:A cousin once described a then-current season of a transformers show as actually pretty decent and funny. Would any of you happen to know which one it is / make a recommendation? The newer comics are pure gold. quote:I think in one of the relatively recent comic series female gendered transformers were the result of forcibly experimenting on and torturing male transformers? Because, y'know, that's in no way bizarre, disgusting or insulting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I bring this up because I re-discovered the funniest thing that was ever on Newgrounds [NSFW!!!!] faint praise, I know, but still) today and it finds its own way to throw a spanner in the works of robo-gender-sexuality.  Truly, it is a face of terror.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:As someone who has a fairly good grasp of DC continuity all the way from pre-crisis to nu52, Transformers continuity seems rather impenetrable to me. Of course, I've spent far more time with the former subject. It only really gets intimidating when you start to look beyond the tv shows, because there are so many comics (especially fan club and convention comics, as well as Japanese exclusive toy pack-in material) that are uber fanwanky since they target the hardcore base instead of the general public. All you really need to know is that there's a multiverse and characters jump from universe to universe all the time, so everything that is ever published is officially canon, even if it's something like blurbs on the packaging of Beast Wars II sausage. At its most basic, Transformers is split into "continuity families", which are universes that contain similar character designs and usually similar character archetypes (although these can vary within the individual continuities in the continuity families themselves - for example, Star Saber in the Victory cartoon is a typical stoic anime leader, but in the IDW comics he's a religious zealot, and both of these fall under the "G1 continuity family"). The main six are: Generation 1 (+ the Beast Era, which takes place after G1 but is different enough that it's usually given its own category), Robots in Disguise (2001), the Unicron Trilogy, Animated, the Bayverse, and Aligned. There's smaller and more obscure continuity families like Robot Heroes and Go-Bots but they don't really matter. Within G1 there's two main branches: Japanese G1 and Western G1. Japanese G1 encompasses the original TF show and its additional Japanese exclusive comics, the shows Headmasters, Masterforce, and Victory, the OVAs Zone and Scramble City, the original movie, Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Beast Wars II, and Beast Wars Neo, Car Robots (originally a separate universe but retconned as G1, although in English it was dubbed as "Robots in Disguise" and remains its own continuity family over here) as well as a billion other smaller comics that make everything in the multiverse tie together with dimension hopping adventures etc. The Western branch is the G1 cartoon, Beast Wars, and Beast Machines representing television while there are multiple different comic book takes on G1 (Marvel G1, Marvel UK G1, G2, Regeneration One, Dreamwave G1, IDW G1, etc.) RID (2001) is just a one-off anime that's silly but enjoyable. The Unicron Trilogy is a series of three anime (Armada, Energon, Cybertron - called Micron Legend, Super Link, and Galaxy Force in Japan) with some different comic book takes. Animated is one show with a few comics. The Bayverse is the movies + comics + animated shorts like Cyber Missions. Aligned is the WfC games + comics + TF:Prime and Rescue Bots shows + the new show coming out, also called Robots in Disguise that's unrelated to the other Robots in Disguise. Also a Japanese set of pack-in animated shorts called TF: Go! Outside of those you have multiversal scenarios like the Universe War, where Unicron abducts Transformers from across time and space; the Unicron Singularity, where Unicron implodes between the Energon and Cybertron cartoons and causes Unicron to be killed in all TF universes, which leads to memory loss issues and general retconning; Axiom Nexus, which is a hubworld for dimensional travelers inhabited by superadvanced Transtech Transformers; Alternity, where TF archetypes from across all worlds merge to form singular god-like beings, etc. That's the stuff where it gets ultra self-referential and you need the TFWiki to understand what's going on. ...I meant for that to be less confusing but I don't think that really helped. CJSwiss fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:05
|
|
CJSwiss posted:...the new show coming out, also called Robots in Disguise that's unrelated to the other Robots in Disguise. And it's based around loving Bumbleebee, isn't it? CJSwiss posted:This is probably Transformers: Animated, which ran for 3 seasons on Cartoon Network. It was a pretty silly show but it had a lot of great characters. Unfortunately it was cancelled before the fourth season since Hasbro wanted to get their channel The Hub up and running, and they made TF: Prime after that, which is mostly drab and dreary. I mean Prime is good, but it runs in circles a lot because it refuses to ever advance past the status quo. There's so many points where they set up great potential story arcs and then just sink them 2 or 3 episodes later. TF: Prime is such a mixed bag. The only thing that's really consistently outstanding is the voice work - they got a lot of really good talent (seriously, check out the cast list) who absolutely nailed their characters. Whenever I feel like saying something else about it is good, I feel like I should append a clarification clause to the end of it. Like: "The CGI work is generally solid with some really good looking designs (Ratchet and Arcee) - but a lot of other characters don't look nearly as good," or "Characters are fun and interesting with a unique, cool take on them (like Soundwave) - but some of the most interesting and unique ones are dropped suddenly or abruptly sidelined" or "Episodes are generally solid and plotted well - but the overarching metaplot is virtually non-existent except when it suddenly leaps to centre stage" or "Adds depth to the Autobot/Decepticon conflict but still can't figure out why they're called Decepticons and utterly ignores the obvious point that the human characters should be making - that violently defending a strict, caste-based society is problematic". And tone, good Lord, the tone. In one scene, Shockwave can be seconds away from impaling Starscream's optics on a spike in order to make him "share my perception of things" and then can turn around and be the subject of a joke from Starscream about microchipping his Predacons. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:And it's based around loving Bumbleebee, isn't it?  quote:TF: Prime is such a mixed bag. The only thing that's really consistently outstanding is the voice work - they got a lot of really good talent (seriously, check out the cast list) who absolutely nailed their characters. Whenever I feel like saying something else about it is good, I feel like I should append a clarification clause to the end of it. Like: "The CGI work is generally solid with some really good looking designs (Ratchet and Arcee) - but a lot of other characters don't look nearly as good," or "Characters are fun and interesting - but some of the most interesting and unique ones are dropped suddenly or abruptly sidelined" or "Episodes are generally solid and plotted well - but the overarching metaplot is virtually non-existent except when it suddenly leaps to centre stage." I found it very odd that they didn't focus more on the 13 since they have their artifacts all over the place and keep trying to make it as "epic" in tone as possible. Also never understood why they even bothered with Unicron when its irrelevant to the majority of the show except for the movie finale. Actually the thing that always bothered me most was how they aborted the Orion Pax story arc since it would've been really interesting to have OP have to relearn "what it means to be a Prime", which they said was the focus of the show when it came out, but then never really dwelled on other than "Optimus is really serious all the time!!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
CJSwiss posted:I found it very odd that they didn't focus more on the 13 since they have their artifacts all over the place and keep trying to make it as "epic" in tone as possible. Also never understood why they even bothered with Unicron when its irrelevant to the majority of the show except for the movie finale. Actually the thing that always bothered me most was how they aborted the Orion Pax story arc since it would've been really interesting to have OP have to relearn "what it means to be a Prime", which they said was the focus of the show when it came out, but then never really dwelled on other than "Optimus is really serious all the time!!" They began dropping Jack at around that time, too, I think. I guess the whole 'he's learning how to be a good, mature leader like Prime' becomes more difficult to execute when Prime didn't really learn anything because he was basically born to rule thanks to ancient space magic or whatever. Jack's arc literally just kind of ends. You think he's going to grow up, be a man, gain Arcee's respect as a 'full partner', and then Arcee is telling Miko about her past with Shockwave and Cliffjumper and not Jack and it's all just a bunch of weird decisions.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:They began dropping Jack at around that time, too, I think. I guess the whole 'he's learning how to be a good, mature leader like Prime' becomes more difficult to execute when Prime didn't really learn anything because he was basically born to rule thanks to ancient space magic or whatever. Jack's arc literally just kind of ends. You think he's going to grow up, be a man, gain Arcee's respect as a 'full partner', and then Arcee is telling Miko about her past with Shockwave and Cliffjumper and not Jack and it's all just a bunch of weird decisions. To be fair that made sense as she was trying to console Miko after Bulkhead got nearly killed by Hardshell. But yeah the humans didn't really go anywhere... Sari probably has the best story arc in western TF cartoons but unfortunately that got cut off due to the cancellation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I really suffered through Age of Extinction, whether it was the bad comical acting of a lot of actors (like the CEO of KSI), the terrible dialogue, the unnecessary sweeping camera shots (like that hilarious low shot on Titus Welliver as he's barked a location of the people they're going after by Kelsey Grammer), the gawping face reaction shots, the resurrection of Megatron as Galvatron that ultimately is just a "meh" plot point reserved for the next movie, the Dinobots just kinda inserted into the movie even though they're in the movie's advertising, the silly dynamic between characters... There's probably more I could complain about but I honestly don't want to waste more time on thinking about that waste of three hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I agree. Stop wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
This video is making the rounds on Twitter. It's by the same guy who did the excellent video about Edgar Wright's approach to visual comedy (http://vimeo.com/96558506) and does a great job of explaining why Michael Bay's style is so effective yet so frequently misused by Bay himself. Recommended for both lovers and haters of Michael Bay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Sire Oblivion posted:Really? I love that game but I don't remember Cybertron talking to you. Though it's been a while. Milky Moor posted:For example, gender representation is still an issue with Arcee remaining, it seems, the only well-defined female character from that canon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Sefiros posted:I'm sure IMAX scenes are in 16:9, my Dark Knight blu-ray keeps switching ratios. It's annoying as poo poo. Atleast Nolan tried to keep it consistent and had (mostly) entire sequences kept in each format. From what I've read Bay is just all over the place, cutting between formats frequently within each scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:This video is making the rounds on Twitter. It's by the same guy who did the excellent video about Edgar Wright's approach to visual comedy (http://vimeo.com/96558506) and does a great job of explaining why Michael Bay's style is so effective yet so frequently misused by Bay himself. Recommended for both lovers and haters of Michael Bay. Could do without all the qualification at the beginning, like his credibility is put in jeopardy by taking Bay seriously for like 7 minutes. Still a worthwhile watch for someone like me who is fascinated by his style but doesn't know too much about cinematography. "Bayhem" is not really the best term for what he's talking about- its specifically not wanton disorder or havoc. What he shows is these shots are carefully chosen to create a specific mood and effect for the viewers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Could do without all the qualification at the beginning, like his credibility is put in jeopardy by taking Bay seriously for like 7 minutes. Still a worthwhile watch for someone like me who is fascinated by his style but doesn't know too much about cinematography. I think the Bayhem label works because he uses those shots whether the scene calls for them or not. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but he just haphazardly uses these "cool" techniques without really understanding them, which is a form of filmmaking mayhem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I think the Bayhem label works because he uses those shots whether the scene calls for them or not. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but he just haphazardly uses these "cool" techniques without really understanding them, which is a form of filmmaking mayhem. The guy says that but doesn't really demonstrate it, though. He basically relies on Bay's reputation/meme for that part. The closest he comes is at the end, but in the actual film that was the most effective and memorable sequence to me. It's communicating something different than the shot from Fargo that he compares it to. The film is about people who want the good life but decide to just steal it, whereas these other characters have achieved it themselves. That's why there's still an element of luxury to the visuals there, compared to the mundane coziness of the Fargo one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
I wasn't even thinking of that example, more so the twisting hero shots whether it's a big moment or not. See 3:15 in the video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Man this thread's more transformers fanwanky than the bss thread. When viewing tf media I don't really care about all this universal stream and unicron and whatever else is being talked about and just care about whether it tells a fun story on its own. Cardboard Box A posted:Wait holy poo poo did the Transformers toyline just introduce another robot faction named after ancient biblical tribes? The toys are just mini-cons. The generations toys are homages to past things and then worked into the comics one way or another, usually by showing up and saying something for a panel or two. James Roberts is probably responsible for naming the Ammonites in the IDW comics. Some characters gave them the name "mini-cons" because they are tiny and want to kill you with guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I think the Bayhem label works because he uses those shots whether the scene calls for them or not. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but he just haphazardly uses these "cool" techniques without really understanding them, which is a form of filmmaking mayhem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Rita Repulsa posted:The toys are just mini-cons. The generations toys are homages to past things and then worked into the comics one way or another, usually by showing up and saying something for a panel or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Every shot Michael Bay chooses is for a reason, he's a director. He's been making films (including commercials) for a long time, he does "understand" them. He understands that they look cool and give a sense of scale but doesn't understand the other effects they have on the viewer and when to contrast that style with other types of shots. There is constant movement in the frame in so many of his shots that it creates fatigue, a lack of clarity, and makes every moment seem 'big' so that none of them seem big. That's what he doesn't understand, or if he does, he doesn't care (which is arguably even worse).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:They were in the comics way back when though. Whirl ends their war against the Terradores by... being Whirl at him. Hard. I always assumed they were named after the squid-snails though TBH. You're looking for this guy then I think they were introduced there as set up for their Dark Cybertron appearances, therefore always meant to be the "mini-cons". The writers knew Dark Cybertron and the toys-with-comics-co-sell thing would be happening, and several other characters have story roles that make more sense as set up for that (Scoop, Rattrap, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I wasn't even thinking of that example, more so the twisting hero shots whether it's a big moment or not. See 3:15 in the video. But then you watch his Edgar Wright video where he expresses his dismay at directors that don't treat every moment as an opportunity for something dynamic. Which specific shot are you referring to? Colonel Whitey posted:He understands that they look cool and give a sense of scale but doesn't understand the other effects they have on the viewer and when to contrast that style with other types of shots. There is constant movement in the frame in so many of his shots that it creates fatigue, a lack of clarity, and makes every moment seem 'big' so that none of them seem big. That's what he doesn't understand, or if he does, he doesn't care (which is arguably even worse). Or that's what he wants. I think the sequence at the end of that analysis is a perfect example of his effective use of contrast. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Rita Repulsa posted:You're looking for this guy then
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:But then you watch his Edgar Wright video where he expresses his dismay at directors that don't treat every moment as an opportunity for something dynamic. The Edgar Wright video was about utilizing visual humor in addition to verbal humor in comedies, not creating dynamics in every scene. Even if it was, there are many ways to make a scene more dynamic aside from quick cuts and moving cameras. I'm referring to every time there's a push-in to a low angle or a rotating low angle dolly shot (hero shots) during a piece of dialogue and how sometimes it works (Bad Boys 2, "this poo poo just got real") and sometimes it doesn't (Bad Boys 1, the captain shooting freethrows). If "what he wants" is to have constant motion throughout his films then he isn't utilizing the wide variety of cinematic techniques that would help make his films more effective. I guess some people like that but I can't see why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I'm referring to every time there's a push-in to a low angle or a rotating low angle dolly shot (hero shots) during a piece of dialogue and how sometimes it works (Bad Boys 2, "this poo poo just got real") and sometimes it doesn't (Bad Boys 1, the captain shooting freethrows). If "what he wants" is to have constant motion throughout his films then he isn't utilizing the wide variety of cinematic techniques that would help make his films more effective. I guess some people like that but I can't see why. Just because it doesn't appeal to you personally doesn't mean it's not a deliberate stylistic choice. Bay is an incredibly precise director and I've always been kind of confused as to where the "everything good in the films is accidental" meme came from; you don't get your films in the Criterion Collection by accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:At the end of the day every character in the comics exists for one reason. I didn't think that they'd actually go introducing ones that are so drat hard to actually make. MTMTE exists as much for itself as it does for toy-selling purposes - in fact, the pack-in comics seem to be trying to use the toys TO SELL the comics. They're not gonna make a toy of Rung anytime soon but he's clearly an important character, if you need any evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I would argue that Transformers comics exist for the same reason that Marvel and DC comics do - to provide a lot of potential story material for TV shows and movies (and their attendant toy lines) to draw upon.Rita Repulsa posted:The toys are just mini-cons. The generations toys are homages to past things and then worked into the comics one way or another, usually by showing up and saying something for a panel or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
3 posted:you don't get your films in the Criterion Collection by accident. Chasing Amy
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I would argue that Transformers comics exist for the same reason that Marvel and DC comics do - to provide a lot of potential story material for TV shows and movies (and their attendant toy lines) to draw upon. Man, if more "mainstream" TF media started drawing from or adapting LSotW/MtMtE, I think I might explode with joy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Man, if more "mainstream" TF media started drawing from or adapting LSotW/MtMtE, I think I might explode with joy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Well how long did it take The Fallen to go from comics to the Bayverse? Like, four or five years. The War Within was around 2004, and ROTF was 2009.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
I like the end of the film, where people literally need to let go of their material possessions to escape the magnetic weapon. Right as it hits, the camera lingers on a random bystander's Gucci shades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
3 posted:Just because it doesn't appeal to you personally doesn't mean it's not a deliberate stylistic choice. Bay is an incredibly precise director and I've always been kind of confused as to where the "everything good in the films is accidental" meme came from; you don't get your films in the Criterion Collection by accident. And just because it's a deliberate stylistic choice doesn't mean it's good or effective. I also never said or suggested that everything good in his films is accidental. I actually really like some of Bay's films and I'm trying to give credit where credit is due here - the use of motion is totally appropriate and enhances lots of scenes but it also is inappropriate for lots of other scenes, making his films overall less effective than they could be. Every opinion on a film's quality is a matter of personal preference to some degree but some opinions are more supportable than others. Like, in your opinion, how does the use of constant motion (either elements within the frame or the camera itself moving) enhance or benefit his films and what Bay is trying to do (also what is he trying to do)? Why wouldn't utilizing a bit more stillness in some scenes help the scenes with lots of movement be more effective? I'm watching Pain and Gain for the first time and so far there have been maybe four static shots? Even dialog scenes are in deep focus so you can see the entire environment and there's always something going on in the background like steam from inexplicable places or vehicles moving. It's entertaining but even more so because it's a crime caper in the style of Transformers which is kind of hilarious. Not sure yet if it's good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
There's a degree to which the constant motion and chaos is kind of the point, especially in Pain & Gain. These aren't contemplative characters we're traveling with, and they're not so good at stopping to notice details. They're lurching forward and making rash decisions and their even tripping on something half the time. But even then the energy of the camera does wax and wane at the appropriate points in the narrative. When we go to Ed Harris's character things generally slow down. They don't grind to a halt, but there is relative contrast. A slow clean sequence like the one the Coens blocked for Fargo wouldn't have been appropriate for the film, anymore than a Kubrickian moment of symmetrical stillness would fit into a Captain America film. Also, man don't post and watch. Edit: Man it bothers me how the dude in that video claims Michael Bay can't explain why shots are good. He's pretty articulate about shot construction when he's talking to an audience he thinks will understand, just because he sticks to terms like "dynamic" when talking to a lay audience doesn't mean he doesn't know why he does what he does. Also that shot in Bad Boys that supposedly doesn't call for the energetic camera is using the movement to emphasize how pissed Joe Pantiliano's character is. How is that not obvious? Edit 2: Also this guy skips a lot of what's unique about Bay's style and instead mentions a lot of stuff better attributed to the two Scott brothers, which he ironically mentions as borrowing Bay's style and pushing it further. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Well, for one, I think Bay's strength as a director is his penchant for using the hyperreal to lay a foundation for his films, and you can see this in pretty much his entire stable. Things are in constant motion from the word go, from characters to set dressing to even linear time in the case of TF1 in particular. Take for instance a stage play, or a dark ride at a carnival; shortcuts and tricks have to be taken in order to keep the audience in a state of willing suspension of disbelief. However, if you draw attention to these tricks by making their inclusion an obvious and fundamental part of the experience, you elevate it out of the reality you've already constructed into another layer of reality. Now, thematically speaking, this whirlwind of movement can be applied to the nature of the Transformers themselves. The act of transformation in the movies is a whirling, chaotic mess, almost a force of nature. Every single piece and detail of the robot is summarily rearranged into something different, and the process becomes more and more involved as the series moves on (see: Reedman in ROTF, Lazerbeak in DOTM), but the Cybertronians themselves remain culturally inert. The Transformers fight with brutal, unceasing motion, while the human characters in the films remain comparatively motionless. In the first movie, Scorponok, the whirling mess of blades and turbofans is brought down by a group of humans hiding behind a rock and shouting into a radio, while Devastator in the second film, despite his enormous size and whirling maw, gets easily defeated by a dude with a radio and an essentially stationary railgun. For all their bluster and showmanship, the Transformers seem to only be putting on a show for each other; the "robots in disguise" conceit melts away almost immediately once it runs up against human resistance. In a sense, constant motion is the disguise itself, a facade that can easily be defeated by sitting still for a bit and thinking laterally. Now, you're right in that this particular whirlwind style of cinematography isn't for everyone. Contrast, for example, someone like Andrei Tarkovsky who uses very deliberate pacing and static shots to lay a thematic groundwork for his movies. I will say that I far prefer his style of filmmaking to Bay's overstimulating fireworks shows, but they each use their respective styles to supplement their own unique flavors of storytelling. 3 fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:
I picked up on that and so I believe the video guy did too, I think the point is that Bay's using the dramatic push-in for a scene of light ballbusting just like he'd use it for a critical turning point for a character, and the argument is it waters down the impact the more you use it. The examples he use do reinforce your point, at the same time - the Pantoliano push-in is quick and antic, whereas the Wahlberg one is slower like the DeNiro one in Goodfellas - Bay is constantly moving, but he modulates speed to set the tone. But I'm still sympathetic to the video guy's line of thinking, and since we're talking about dynamism it is funny that Bay's images are so undeniably dynamic and yet as a filmmaker I think of him as one of the least dynamic around - I agree with the video guy that Bay's application of technique is monotonous and without much range. The way he numbs you with his unceasing movement is to me his hallmark. It's like, my understanding is there are technically excellent drummers for instance who have a terrible sense of dynamics (I don't want to take the music analogy too far because I risk showing my rear end). It's part craft and part a sensibility, right? (I think a good and ballsy filmmaker could make Kubrickian Captain America work!) Also do you have any examples of Bay being more articulate with an informed audience? I'd love to hear him get into the nitty gritty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:53
|
|
