Special Effects Wizard Reveals the Secret of Smashing Buildings with Transformers

[Logan Westbrook]

Special Effects Wizard Reveals the Secret of Smashing Buildings with Transformers

You'd think that getting giant robots to smash stuff would be easy, but you'd be wrong.

Whether you liked the Transformers movies or not, it's hard to deny that the visual effects that brought giant robots capable of changing for in the blink of an eye to life were pretty darn impressive. Some effects were trickier than others of course, but as Industrial Light & Magic supervisor Scott Farrar shows, with a little ingenuity and a lot of planning, even the toughest shots can look great.

The behind the scenes footage - which you can watch here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uNNQ9CC4A0&feature=player_embedded] - deals with a section from the first Transformers movie, where Megatron, in his Cybertronian jet mode, smashes through a building with Optimus Prime clinging to his underside. Rather than try to do the whole scene digitally, something that director Michael Bay apparently wasn't keen on anyway, Farrar said that ILM used a combination of digital and physical effects to achieve the shot, building an enormous miniature - as bizarre as that sounds - and filming the carnage as a scale replica of Megatron ploughed through it.

It's fascinating to see the lengths that ILM went to for a sequence that lasts just a few seconds, but it's hard to deny how effective it looks. It's a little like learning how a magician pulled off some elaborate illusion: interesting and enthralling, but in a very different way than the trick itself. If you're interested in the visual effects that go into movies, you can see a load more on ILM's official YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/user/ILMVisualFX] page.

Source: io9 [http://io9.com/5803145/how-michael-bay-threw-megatron-through-a-building]


Permalink

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

 

[draythefingerless]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

 

[draythefingerless]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

 

[Mister Benoit]

Looked into their Youtube page, those guys are incredibly talented. Although I haven't seen them, they make me want to watch Pirates 2 & 3 just for the animations.

 

[clipse15]

Looked into their Youtube page, those guys are incredibly talented. Although I haven't seen them, they make me want to watch Pirates 2 & 3 just for the animations.

Well I don't really like the third movie I think that Davey Jones is one of the most incredible effects in cinema. He looks photo realistic.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Couldn't they just say "Special Effects Wizard Revelas the Secret of Michael Bay's Entire Career"?

 

[Andronicus]

You'd think that getting giant robots to smash stuff would be easy, but you'd be wrong.

Who the hell actually watched the special effects in Transformers and thought "Pfft, I could do that"?

 

[draythefingerless]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

 

[draythefingerless]

Looked into their Youtube page, those guys are incredibly talented. Although I haven't seen them, they make me want to watch Pirates 2 & 3 just for the animations.

You dunno Light n Magic? Pretty much top dogs when it comes to Special Effects. Like....they created the lightsaber :/

 

[Mister Benoit]

Looked into their Youtube page, those guys are incredibly talented. Although I haven't seen them, they make me want to watch Pirates 2 & 3 just for the animations.

You dunno Light n Magic? Pretty much top dogs when it comes to Special Effects. Like....they created the lightsaber :/

I know of them and that they're a division of lucas, just not that they did those movies as I haven't seen any of them either.

Also don't really care for Star Wars.

 

[Virgil]

And here I thought all you needed to do was hold them by their waist and make crushing noises while you bounce them around violently.

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

Ya? But what reasons are there to hate those films?

 

[draythefingerless]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

Ya? But what reasons are there to hate those films?

Actually i dont hate the first one, but the second is a wreck. hammy or bad acting, stupid plot points, and lack of connection, as well making many movie mistakes(pointless recurring villains, plot holes, deus ex machinas and such) making the pretty images just be pretty images.

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

Ya? But what reasons are there to hate those films?

Actually i dont hate the first one, but the second is a wreck. hammy or bad acting, stupid plot points, and lack of connection, as well making many movie mistakes(pointless recurring villains, plot holes, deus ex machinas and such) making the pretty images just be pretty images.

See but those are problems with the script. How are those the fault of Bay?

 

[draythefingerless]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

Ya? But what reasons are there to hate those films?

Actually i dont hate the first one, but the second is a wreck. hammy or bad acting, stupid plot points, and lack of connection, as well making many movie mistakes(pointless recurring villains, plot holes, deus ex machinas and such) making the pretty images just be pretty images.

See but those are problems with the script. How are those the fault of Bay?

Actually he interfered with the writting, and he himself admitted that Revenge of the Fallen was a wreck.

 

[clipse15]

This is one of the reasons why I can't fathom why Michael Bay seems to get as much hate as he does. He is one of the few action directors out there who insists on doing practical effects as much as possible. Explosions in his films are real explosions and not cheap looking CG flames and effects. He is also one of the few directors who flat out said no to shooting in 3D because he knew he wouldn't be able to use as many practical effects using those cameras and that he wouldn't comprimise that just to get 3D dollars from the audience. He is also staying away from that Post-Production 3D that made Clash of the Titans look like absolute shit.

problem with him was never the effects or technicalities. because in the end, it matters more the premise and narrative of a movie then the effects used in it. and those went out the window COMPLETELY by the second film.

That's not the point. In the realm of action films there are a gluttony of much worse films who have equally and lower quality characterizations of characters. The point i'm making is that out of all these directors and filmmakers Michael Bay is always used as the most hated because he is an easy target and a recognizable name. Are his films masterpieces? No. But just because his name is on a film people immediatly right it off. He is not the one who is writting these films.

in the realm of action films, none of the crappy ones get to make a bazillion dollars and ruin a good childhood memory to many people. thats why hes hated. there are many crappier but it is soon forgotten. this was transformers. by partaking sth this huge and famous, you accept the risks of the throwback. hes not the worse, but he decided to risk the most. the bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the old saying goes.

This is such a non argument. Who cares which film makes how much money, that's not based on his quality as a director. Ruined a good childhood memory? How is that memory suddenly ruined because of his films? Over the years i've seen shitty interpretations of things I love, including much worse Transformers incarnations.

I don't see how the baggage and expectations of filmgoers effect the product that made.

Then you understand nothing of the situation that involves Bay. You simply lack the point of view of the masses of people who hated his interpretation of Transformers. I dont hate the guy, but i at least understand why people find him a beacon to pick on.

Ya? But what reasons are there to hate those films?

Actually i dont hate the first one, but the second is a wreck. hammy or bad acting, stupid plot points, and lack of connection, as well making many movie mistakes(pointless recurring villains, plot holes, deus ex machinas and such) making the pretty images just be pretty images.

See but those are problems with the script. How are those the fault of Bay?

Actually he interfered with the writting, and he himself admitted that Revenge of the Fallen was a wreck.

What? no he didn't write any of the film, he's not a writer. He admitted it was bad because it was abad movie filled with bad writting and they couldn't do any rewrites of the script because the film was in production during the writer's strike