Confirmed no mass shifting for TF movie

[Rumble]

@hmmm@ @hmmm@ Seriously Rumble, if every movie has to have the logic and analysis, there wouldn't be any fun or real entertainment to that because we would all know the answer and how to obtain one.

And this is where fantasy and supernatural come into play because not everything can be solved through science or mathematic. I mean, if I were to watch the Return of Superman, am I going to ask the writer or the producer to show me every logical detail as to how on earth heat vision come out of Superman eye, or how Superman eye see like an Xray? What exactly does his body have that we don't have after all, he got a heart, lung, and breath like we do. Sure he's an alien, and so are TFs.

 

On to mass shifting, okay let take Mystic of the Xmen for example, she has the ability to change from one human to another human whether fat, skinny, or tall. How many of the audiences out there actually take their mind out of the movie and begin to ponder the logic and analysis whether there's any real formular in which this power can be real? Mystic of the Xmen power is very much similar to the Transformers except it uses a diffferent technical term that is, one is called Mass Shifting and the other is Metamorphosis (flesh creature).

 

Well, honestly, I actually did ponder the physics of every mutant. I found Colossus's ability to be illogical because his whole body is as hard as steel, being solid and rigid, how can he actually move his arms, legs and neck if his skin is solid and rigid steel? Arm, leg and neck movements can only be possible if our skin can experience flexible compression and tension, in which I don't think bulletproof steel is able to exhibit freely. Cyclops's eye beam definitely contradicts energy conservation law, unless we say that his body has solar power generation.

 

Generally, I can accept the fact that they are mutants, so that no further explanation of the nature of how they have thier abilities is needed, but what I can't stand is when there is contradictions to the law of physics. Saying that they have mutations down to molecular level, therefore giving them thier powers is justified enough for me, like saying that Colossus's atoms and molecules can change itself to steel atoms is fine by me. But if his limbs and joints are really steel, then technically, he would be just a statue, unable to move.

 

Hence, I actually don't mind if there is mass shifting, having claimed that it is alien technology, but the real problem is the criticisms and ambiguities that lie within. If mass shifting is made possible, then why don't they super size themselves to a gestalt size? Let Bumblebee be as huge as Devastator, then even he can stomp Megatron. So, to avoid such uncertainties, mass shifting is better left impossible.

 

And yes, I inevitably think about every minute detail when it comes to movies...like 'why didn't gandalf ride one of those eagles and fly to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, when the Nazguls were out hunting the ring?'

 

What can I say, its a curse to always think like that, but that's the way my brain works

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

Hence, I actually don't mind if there is mass shifting, having claimed that it is alien technology, but the real problem is the criticisms and ambiguities that lie within. If mass shifting is made possible, then why don't they super size themselves to a gestalt size? Let Bumblebee be as huge as Devastator, then even he can stomp Megatron. So, to avoid such uncertainties, mass shifting is better left impossible.

Mass-shifting is not the same as arbitrarily changing size. It's not like Ant-Man or The Atom. They have a set amount of mass, and that mass is shifted when necessary to assume their alt-modes.

 

Being able to mass-shift does not mean creating new mass out of nowhere.

 

 

Also, it's called "science fiction" (or just fiction) for a reason: it isn't real. It isn't SUPPOSED to be real. Pseudo-science and unreal technology CAN be pulled out of one's arse if need be, because it's FICTION, and not bound by the laws of reality.

 

 

Why do you bother with fictional entertainment at all? It seems like you'd be far happier with true stories and documentaries.

 

 

Except in the cases of true stories and "base on actual events", stories and movies are not intended to be taken as scientifically sound or accurate.

 

Nevermind the fact that we're dealing with totally alien technologies and concepts of "physical reality".

 

"Any suitably advanced technology will appear as magic to a lesser developed people." --Isaac Asimov

 

Many of the things you take for granted now were deemed "impossible" in the past. The Transformers have existed for tens of millions of our years. That's a LOT of time (between Great Wars) for technological advancement; heck, even DURING the wars, they would've been advancing--we don't stop research and development when WE are at war, afterall.

 

The fact that our level of science can't explain something doesn't make it impossible or illogical.

[Rumble]

Mass-shifting is not the same as arbitrarily changing size. It's not like Ant-Man or The Atom. They have a set amount of mass, and that mass is shifted when necessary to assume their alt-modes.

 

Being able to mass-shift does not mean creating new mass out of nowhere.

 

 

Also, it's called "science fiction" (or just fiction) for a reason: it isn't real. It isn't SUPPOSED to be real. Pseudo-science and unreal technology CAN be pulled out of one's arse if need be, because it's FICTION, and not bound by the laws of reality.

 

 

Why do you bother with fictional entertainment at all? It seems like you'd be far happier with true stories and documentaries.

 

 

Except in the cases of true stories and "base on actual events", stories and movies are not intended to be taken as scientifically sound or accurate.

 

Nevermind the fact that we're dealing with totally alien technologies and concepts of "physical reality".

 

"Any suitably advanced technology will appear as magic to a lesser developed people." --Isaac Asimov

 

Many of the things you take for granted now were deemed "impossible" in the past. The Transformers have existed for tens of millions of our years. That's a LOT of time (between Great Wars) for technological advancement; heck, even DURING the wars, they would've been advancing--we don't stop research and development when WE are at war, afterall.

 

The fact that our level of science can't explain something doesn't make it impossible or illogical.

 

True, but only movies which have a basis of understanding or something people can relate to turn out good. Star Trek is a science fiction film, but they explain the teleportation based on conversion from atom to energy propagated to a distance and then reconstructed back into atoms. They came up with this explaination so that people can actually relate to it, or at lest understand half of the teleportation concept. The hyperspace technology in Star Trek is based on electron acceleration that actually exist in real life, but not brought into application because we don't have sufficient energy to make the application feasible. It is this little things that make a good movie, not just creative ideas alone. Being a science fiction film, Star Trek has the right to create a concept without explaining it, but they do. CSI does well because the forensics are stuff people can understand.

 

Coming up with a completely alien technology without giving the audience a chance to relate to thier knowledge of science is enough for fanboy delusion, but many of the audiences might not be familiar with transformers, so if those people can't relate to thier childhood past, they must at least be able to relate to science or reality, then the movie becomes tailored for all audiences, and makes a fan out of a non-fan

[Starscream49]

The thing people have to realize is TF arent made with Earths conventional metals. They are made with stuff from another planet in another galaxy. So size shifting should be done. Maybe what they are made of makes it possible.

 

Other than that, if they arent gonna size shift, I want Megatron to be a gun, I want Soundwave as a cassette player, I want shockwave, I want the tapes, and I want reflector. Then we can have GAINT autobots vs tiny decepticons. @loll@

[Stickskiller]

And yes, I inevitably think about every minute detail when it comes to movies...like 'why didn't gandalf ride one of those eagles and fly to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, when the Nazguls were out hunting the ring?'

 

Well, I remember Gandalf said he couldn't have the ring, because he could be tempted by his power...

[Rumble]

And yes, I inevitably think about every minute detail when it comes to movies...like 'why didn't gandalf ride one of those eagles and fly to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, when the Nazguls were out hunting the ring?'

 

Well, I remember Gandalf said he couldn't have the ring, because he could be tempted by his power...

 

then why not let Frodo ride the eagle and go to mount Doom?

[Stickskiller]

And yes, I inevitably think about every minute detail when it comes to movies...like 'why didn't gandalf ride one of those eagles and fly to Mount Doom to destroy the ring, when the Nazguls were out hunting the ring?'

 

Well, I remember Gandalf said he couldn't have the ring, because he could be tempted by his power...

 

then why not let Frodo ride the eagle and go to mount Doom?

 

When you read the Silmarillion, you learn that the Eagles are proud. They won't let anyone riding them like stupid beast.

Gandalf is god-linked, so the eagles make an exception for him, but there's no way they'd let a hobbit ride them.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Stickskiller

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

True, but only movies which have a basis of understanding or something people can relate to turn out good. Star Trek is a science fiction film, but they explain the teleportation based on conversion from atom to energy propagated to a distance and then reconstructed back into atoms. They came up with this explaination so that people can actually relate to it, or at lest understand half of the teleportation concept. The hyperspace technology in Star Trek is based on electron acceleration that actually exist in real life, but not brought into application because we don't have sufficient energy to make the application feasible. It is this little things that make a good movie, not just creative ideas alone. Being a science fiction film, Star Trek has the right to create a concept without explaining it, but they do. CSI does well because the forensics are stuff people can understand.

There is no "hyperspace" in Star Trek. There is "warp speed," which is based on bending space-time to circumvent the "nothing can travel faster than light" speed-limit.

 

The transporter converts matter into a data-stream, transmits that data-stream, then rebuilds it at the target location.

 

CSI is based in factual science, rather than science-fiction. It's kind of important for them to make sure they keep their forensic information accurate, as it's required to maintain the illusion.

 

Transformers is based in science-fiction, which means they do -not- have to adhere to human (read: Earth) understanding of science and technology.

 

Once again, people who find themselves compelled to squeeze all the fun and enjoyment out of their entertainment media are the minority. They are not the target-audience.

 

As other people in other threads devoted to this very discussion have pointed out repeatedly: the producers are interested in mass-market appeal. That is, as many money-carrying consumers as they can lure in.

 

That majority will not bat an eye at an F-15 becoming a robot roughly the same size as one that was a semi tractor or Volkswagen Beetle just moments earlier.

 

 

Coming up with a completely alien technology without giving the audience a chance to relate to thier knowledge of science is enough for fanboy delusion, but many of the audiences might not be familiar with transformers, so if those people can't relate to thier childhood past, they must at least be able to relate to science or reality, then the movie becomes tailored for all audiences, and makes a fan out of a non-fan

People do not read fiction books or watch sci-fi movies for REALITY. These things are enjoyed because they take the reader/viewer OUT of reality.

 

Those who want entertainment rooted in reality read true-life drama or watch things like CSI.

 

Fiction is supposed to be an ESCAPE from "reality," not an EXTENSION of it.

 

"Terminator 3" didn't flop because anybody in the audience stopped watching to wonder how the hell a robot made of liquid metal could hold its form(s) or move around without obvious gears or hydraulics; just like T2, they simply accepted it as part of the plot (i.e. it was technology from the future, therefore, it just did what it was supposed to do). It flopped because it just sucked.

 

On a mildly-related tangent, "The Blair Witch Project" was a 'success', despite being entirely unbelievable and unrealistic. Then again, it was made on a $30,000 budget and grossed 10 times that, if I remember.

 

What does that mean? It means that the majority of movie-goers don't CARE about the science or inner workings of a liquid-metal robot, anymore than they care about the lack of scientific or logical basis of Blair Witch.

 

Conversely, they aren't going to stop watching Transformers (or walk out in a daze of "WTF?") just because a 15-foot-tall, sentient, robotic lifeform transforms into a human-sized cassette-player. (speaking of which, the last I knew, Soundwave was going to be a helicopter, then become some sort of "music device" later in the movie).

 

Also, Star Trek (the series or movies) actually devoted very little screen-time to explanations of "How Things Work". The various books (novels and Technical Manuals), however, did (and do) expound on how various "Treknologies" work, because they can. (of course, the tech manuals are the only ones that are "canon")

 

And, as I recall, Star Wars has had little, if any, explanation of any of its technology in the course of the movies. I don't remember any of the movies bombing because the audience took issue with the total lack of scientific or logical explanations of a moon-sized battlestation, a little green Muppet lifting an X-Wing fighter out of a swamp with his mind, laser blasters or light sabers. Is there non-movie material explaining the science and logic behind a laser-sword that somehow limits itself from simply extending forever when activated? I don't know, as I've never been interested in printed SW stuff, but I'm pretty sure they never explained it in the movies.

 

Now that I think about it, that last paragraph is probably the BEST argument for not cutting out mass-shifting that I could offer.

[OB1Killa]

Summarize your posts.... so many words !

[nomadofthewaves]

own topic