Ed Fuego
01-09-2008, 05:49 PM
I'll state right at the beginning that this might wander a little bit.
So last night I picked up Transformers at Wal-mart, and yeah I know it came out a while ago, but what I can say, life happens and I was busy. But anyway I brought it home and popped it into my DVD player. I watched it, with Bay's commentary, which was excellent, and I think that I enjoyed just as much as I did when I saw it in the theatre in July.
So I popped in the second disc, and started going throught the behind the scenes stuff. I like learning about how movies are made, and have especially liked watching the behind the scenes stuff for Bay's movies, because it always amazes me how complex his movies are to create.
And that's kinda the problem. Let me give an example.
Near the end, when Starscream lands on the street, and knocks all those cars end over end, it was awesome. I loved it. But when I saw it from behind the scenes, something strange happened... I liked it better. You were probably thinking that I would say that I suddenly didn't like it, but that's the part that is strange. I liked it much better because, well, I saw more of it.
Now before you jump to the conclusion about how this is going to be a rant about how Bay's editing sucks, he moves the camera too much, he shakes it too much, let me just stop you right there. I love Bay's style, always have and there are people on this board who can attest to that.
So what I am actually saying? Well, I think that I'm saying this. If you look at many of action movies made recently, you'll see action. Sometimes very good action; sometimes very crappy action. But if you were to see a scene in which cars (for whatever reason) were tossed down a street, in all likelihood, that scene would be the climax of that action scene. That'd be it. End of action scene, on to some dialogue. It would be shot from 8 different angles, and you'd see every part of it, because it's such a big stunt and so dangerous, etc. that the director would want to show it for it's "hugeness". And that would be pretty much all they had to show anyway.
But in a Michael Bay movie, that part of the action scene lasted about 5 seconds. And then it was on to something bigger and badassier (technical term).
But what about that scene? That scene was awesome. I saw it on the behind the scenes DVD. It was so complex and there was so much going on; much of which we didn't get to see because the scene (in the film) lasted only 5 seconds.
And there are other scenes like that too. The freeway chase was awesome, but it looked like from the behind the scenes DVD that we only got to see (in the film) a fraction of the awesomeness.
The scene where Blackout throws the car at Sam and then flies over him. From behind the scenes there was so much more carnage that was really hard to pick out because the scene was over so fast.
And how about the car that flew into the second story of the building and got stuck there?! I nearly pissed myself when I saw that! But I don't remember it from the movie. Was it in there? Did I just miss it? Was I looking at another part of the screen and that's why I missed it?
There were all sorts of examples. I remember one of the people being interviewed on the DVD said that GM had given Bay like 200 water damaged cars to blow up, flip, toss, whatever. But how many of those cars did we actually see in the film? I would guess a very small fraction. Oh, they were flipped and blowed up (another technical term) I'm sure, but they were flipped and blowed up in a scene where 4 other cars were flipped and blowed up, and inwhich three robots and two humans running around the scene as well. There's just so much going on in the scene that it's just hard to keep track of everything.
And probably most other director's don't get that; they get 20 cars to destroy, so they have to make sure every one gets on screen. Bay doesn't have to do that. And that's part of what makes his movies so unique and amazing, he has the resources to destroy 4 cars that MIGHT make it onto the screen. And he also has the balls to put a camera in the carnage where he knows that only a fraction of the actual carnage will be captured by the camera. Things will happen, very cool things, that won't be on the "film" cameras. We'll see it on the behind the scenes, because the guy holding that camera is 300 feet away, so we can see everything. Of course, it's not as intense from 300 feet away.
Now, I understand that when I movie is made that you film it, perhaps using multiple camera, and then you cut it together and some things are going to be left out, but guess I'm concerned that because Bay is so good at what he does, and that he has to outdo himself everytime (I think the audiences demand it), that we are missing some really amazing stuff because everything has to be packed into a 2 hour movie.
The chaos, or I guess more appropriately, the Bayhem, is just getting bigger and bigger. But the screen is only so big, and the lens are only so wide, and you can only move the camera so far back.
So just seems to me like I'm missing some really awesome stuff. And that frustrates me a little, because Bay doesn't make a new film that comes out every week. So when it does, I want to get my money's worth. And so far, when I saw his movies, I always felt like I have. But looking at the behind the scenes stuff, I start to wonder if that's really true.
And I don't blame Bay, I blame me. Because I (like damn near everybody) want the next thing to be bigger and better and badassier. I'm just wondering if it's possible that were now seeing the problem with that; what in my field (ergonomics) we call a "revenge effect."
I don't know.
Again, I know it's kind of a rambling statement, and I'm not sure if any of it actually made any sense. But I hope some of it did.
It's really important to me that this not be taken as a hostile rant (although it probably will be by many, given the tendencies of some of the vistors to this board), because I'm not angry at all; I'm just making some observations. I'm not really sure if even really think all of these things truely, but watching the movie and the behind the scenes, it just got me really thinking.
Like I said, very that's very dangerous.
Ed Fuego
So last night I picked up Transformers at Wal-mart, and yeah I know it came out a while ago, but what I can say, life happens and I was busy. But anyway I brought it home and popped it into my DVD player. I watched it, with Bay's commentary, which was excellent, and I think that I enjoyed just as much as I did when I saw it in the theatre in July.
So I popped in the second disc, and started going throught the behind the scenes stuff. I like learning about how movies are made, and have especially liked watching the behind the scenes stuff for Bay's movies, because it always amazes me how complex his movies are to create.
And that's kinda the problem. Let me give an example.
Near the end, when Starscream lands on the street, and knocks all those cars end over end, it was awesome. I loved it. But when I saw it from behind the scenes, something strange happened... I liked it better. You were probably thinking that I would say that I suddenly didn't like it, but that's the part that is strange. I liked it much better because, well, I saw more of it.
Now before you jump to the conclusion about how this is going to be a rant about how Bay's editing sucks, he moves the camera too much, he shakes it too much, let me just stop you right there. I love Bay's style, always have and there are people on this board who can attest to that.
So what I am actually saying? Well, I think that I'm saying this. If you look at many of action movies made recently, you'll see action. Sometimes very good action; sometimes very crappy action. But if you were to see a scene in which cars (for whatever reason) were tossed down a street, in all likelihood, that scene would be the climax of that action scene. That'd be it. End of action scene, on to some dialogue. It would be shot from 8 different angles, and you'd see every part of it, because it's such a big stunt and so dangerous, etc. that the director would want to show it for it's "hugeness". And that would be pretty much all they had to show anyway.
But in a Michael Bay movie, that part of the action scene lasted about 5 seconds. And then it was on to something bigger and badassier (technical term).
But what about that scene? That scene was awesome. I saw it on the behind the scenes DVD. It was so complex and there was so much going on; much of which we didn't get to see because the scene (in the film) lasted only 5 seconds.
And there are other scenes like that too. The freeway chase was awesome, but it looked like from the behind the scenes DVD that we only got to see (in the film) a fraction of the awesomeness.
The scene where Blackout throws the car at Sam and then flies over him. From behind the scenes there was so much more carnage that was really hard to pick out because the scene was over so fast.
And how about the car that flew into the second story of the building and got stuck there?! I nearly pissed myself when I saw that! But I don't remember it from the movie. Was it in there? Did I just miss it? Was I looking at another part of the screen and that's why I missed it?
There were all sorts of examples. I remember one of the people being interviewed on the DVD said that GM had given Bay like 200 water damaged cars to blow up, flip, toss, whatever. But how many of those cars did we actually see in the film? I would guess a very small fraction. Oh, they were flipped and blowed up (another technical term) I'm sure, but they were flipped and blowed up in a scene where 4 other cars were flipped and blowed up, and inwhich three robots and two humans running around the scene as well. There's just so much going on in the scene that it's just hard to keep track of everything.
And probably most other director's don't get that; they get 20 cars to destroy, so they have to make sure every one gets on screen. Bay doesn't have to do that. And that's part of what makes his movies so unique and amazing, he has the resources to destroy 4 cars that MIGHT make it onto the screen. And he also has the balls to put a camera in the carnage where he knows that only a fraction of the actual carnage will be captured by the camera. Things will happen, very cool things, that won't be on the "film" cameras. We'll see it on the behind the scenes, because the guy holding that camera is 300 feet away, so we can see everything. Of course, it's not as intense from 300 feet away.
Now, I understand that when I movie is made that you film it, perhaps using multiple camera, and then you cut it together and some things are going to be left out, but guess I'm concerned that because Bay is so good at what he does, and that he has to outdo himself everytime (I think the audiences demand it), that we are missing some really amazing stuff because everything has to be packed into a 2 hour movie.
The chaos, or I guess more appropriately, the Bayhem, is just getting bigger and bigger. But the screen is only so big, and the lens are only so wide, and you can only move the camera so far back.
So just seems to me like I'm missing some really awesome stuff. And that frustrates me a little, because Bay doesn't make a new film that comes out every week. So when it does, I want to get my money's worth. And so far, when I saw his movies, I always felt like I have. But looking at the behind the scenes stuff, I start to wonder if that's really true.
And I don't blame Bay, I blame me. Because I (like damn near everybody) want the next thing to be bigger and better and badassier. I'm just wondering if it's possible that were now seeing the problem with that; what in my field (ergonomics) we call a "revenge effect."
I don't know.
Again, I know it's kind of a rambling statement, and I'm not sure if any of it actually made any sense. But I hope some of it did.
It's really important to me that this not be taken as a hostile rant (although it probably will be by many, given the tendencies of some of the vistors to this board), because I'm not angry at all; I'm just making some observations. I'm not really sure if even really think all of these things truely, but watching the movie and the behind the scenes, it just got me really thinking.
Like I said, very that's very dangerous.
Ed Fuego