Transformers: More than Meets the Eye

by Nancy Jundi as originally published by CinemaEditor Magazine

A few months back, an enormous building crane fell down onto the 405 freeway here in Los Angeles that caused a 15 mile traffic backup lasting for hours. Imagine that crane transformed itself into a 50 story robot within seconds of falling into the lanes and then stomped off into the city. Maybe you can’t, but that was my first thought. Granted, I wasn’t one of the unfortunate folk caught in the endless standstill, but when I heard about it and saw the pictures of cars surrounding the crane, I couldn’t stop thinking about the possibility of our very own robot battle. Weird, I know, but if you had been as obsessed with the Transformers cartoon, movie, comics and toys as I was in the 80’s then chances are your imagination would have wandered in the same direction. After all, the show was set in 2005.

Here it is, summer 2007, and the Transformers are back! Picking up with the Beast Wars story line, essentially an age old fight of good vs. evil, fan boys and girls can barely contain themselves until the big July 4^th release. Editors Paul Rubell, A.C.E. and Glen Scantlebury have been charged with the task of helping Michael Bay and ILM (Industrial Light & Magic) transition this former cartoon into the live action arena. Neither men are strangers to the massive undertaking of a Bay film; Transformers marks Rubell’s second teaming with the director and Scantlebury’s third. But saving the world from Armageddon, holding people hostage on The Rock and two human science projects fleeing The Island all seem rather tame in comparison to a semi-truck that changes into larger than life gun slinger. With Steven Spielberg hands on, a rabid fan base, thousands of plate shots, intricate sound detail and CGI that took nearly 38 hours per frame to render, this film is a far cry from its 80’s origins.

Be honest – do you guys get any of the toys coming out…and can I have some?

Paul Rubell: There are toys coming out?

Glen Scantlebury: I never was into the toys.

(You can hear my heart breaking…)

This was such an effects heavy film, even more so than your average Bay film. What kind of challenges or excitement did that bring to this project for you?

GS: Picking through the thousands of cool plates Michael shot and rejecting all but 425 of them.  Just as challenging is trying to figure out how three-story sized Autobots are going to fit into a shaky cam shot while shooting the crap out of each other, then transforming into jets and flying away.

PR: More challenge than excitement.  When you’re cutting with empty plates the missing action isn’t necessarily scripted.  The missing dialogue isn’t written, much less recorded. The director’s too busy shooting to answer questions.  ILM is calling for turnovers, making vague threats in the nicest possible way.  You wing it!  Eventually Michael comes in and it all becomes clear. However, when you first see the fully lit, modeled, rendered effect – it’s thrilling.

When you’re piecing together these shots, what guides your choices if the dialogue and action aren’t scripted?

PR: Michael loves to improvise on the set, so it’s not so much that the dialogue and action aren’t scripted, as that the footage may no longer represent what’s on the page.  Because our access to Michael during shooting is limited, we have only our intuition as guide.  It’s a minimum-information problem.

I saw that there were fantastically animated story boards; did those help you at all?

PR: We started with the animatics, but as the cut evolved they were discarded and replaced with live action plates — devoid of robots.  The robot dialogue was constantly changing, which enabled great flexibility in the storytelling (you can rewrite the script with impunity) but held up the visual effects work.  We would write new subtitles, and then have them looped before big screenings.

How involved is the sound on this picture? It’s got to be amazing fun or a nightmarish and gargantuan task on a picture with this many effects. Without it already being recorded, did that stint  your process much?

PR: It was a nightmarish, gargantuan, fun task.  During first-cutting, our ace crew — Calvin Wimmer, Ken Blackwell, and Jim Schulte — heroically temped all the robot sounds.  Our sound designers — Ethan Van Der Ryn and Mike Hopkins — came on relatively early in the director’s cut and were able take those sounds to the next level, and then some.  For temp work, we treated the robot voices in the Avid ourselves.

Michael’s films are generally made with such enormous budgets that even he has noted many people prefer to stay away from that kind of pressure. Is that ever a concern for either of you?

GS: Only when he’s sitting three feet next to you.

PR: There may be more money to spend, but the pennies are still counted.  The only real difference is that they pay for your lunch.

How involved are the producers in the cutting room?

PR: Not very.  Michael invites someone in when he wants specific feedback.  All opinions are carefully considered.  We discuss them afterwards among ourselves, and the ones he likes are implemented.

Was Steven Spielberg around much?

PR: Steven is very close to this movie.  We screened an early director’s cut for him up at Michael’s house.  He came to the cutting room a couple of times, to view some scenes and give us his feedback.  To say he’s sharp is an understatement.  He’s Steven Spielberg.  He hones in on the story like a laser.  Every movie would be better if it were submitted to Steven for comments.

GS: Steven and Michael are in the ‘director’s mutual respect society;’ both have figured out how to make hugely successful films in a world where nothing is certain…so all suggestions have been left up to Michael’s discretion.

Were either of you fans of the cartoon, comic or previous movie before coming onto the project?

PR: The cartoons came too late for me, and too early for my son.  While was growing up he had a bunch of the toys, which I found fiendishly clever.  When I knew I was going to do the picture, I bought the DVD’s, but only watched the first episode.  I liked the story, but decided I didn’t want to bring any preconceived ideas – however subconscious – to the film.

GS:  To be honest, I never picked up a toy, saw the cartoon or watched the movie – a virgin transformeree. I believe you want to look at the footage unencumbered from what has come before it.   Michael and the writers took what they wanted from the previous material, so we are free to work with what they gave us.   But after working on Transformers, for eight months if my car turned into a robot, I wouldn’t be surprised.

There has been so much attention paid to this film and Michael has been clear that he wants to please the hardcore fans, have either of you peeked in on the many sites?

GS: No, I’ve got my own robots to worry about.

PR: No.  The expectations of the hardcore fans is intimidating if you expose yourself to it.  You can easily become paralyzed for fear of making a mistake.

You’ve both been on other films (Paul/Blade and Glen/Tomb Raider) where fans were a huge consideration in the characters transition to film – has this been on that same level or even more aware of the fan base?

PR: I was more conscious of the fan base on Blade.  There had been so much negative press and fan-boy chat about the shortcomings of the various comic book adaptations at the time that I found myself checking Ain’t It Cool News on an hourly basis.  Marvel was involved, and they were pretty nervous, as I recall.

GS: When Angelina Jolie first walked onto the set of Tomb Raider, everybody said “whoa… she is the Tomb Raider, no question,” and the same goes for our cast of Autobots. Once you see them transform you totally buy it. ILM and Michael have brought them to life. The key to this picture is the interaction of humans with the Autobots.  Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are terrific and you never question that they can talk to robots. At one point in the film, Agent Simmons (played by John Turturro), commander of a secret department of the government that’s been hunting these alien creatures, shows the Secretary of Defense (played by John Voight) how you can change a cell phone into tiny missile firing robot. It works, and you go with it.

How do you feel about Michael’s films often being branded as “cutty?”

PR: One of my favorite moments was when we were debating whether to play an explosion in three shots or two.  Michael decided on two, then said, “See?  I’m maturing as a film-maker.”  That’s what I love about Michael – he can laugh at himself.

GS: Michael doesn’t want this film to be cutty, but then as you comb through the film again and again, we trim and trim looking for dead space to the point of getting a scene to explode in your face – the signature of a good action picture.

How many cameras does Michael work with?

PR: One, two, or three for most scenes.  It can be as many as seven or more for big stunts.

How many feet of film were shot?

PR:  Just under a million. There’s a kind of macho pride among certain directors as to who can shoot a million feet.

GS: These days everything is telecined, so the old days of just working with circled takes is long gone, but with Michael you have to look at every take, starting with take one, because by the time take eight rolls, he’s changed the shot so much any other production would have given it a new slate number.  Michael hates slates.

What was the process with you, Michael and dailies?

PR: We jump in and cut scenes without prior discussion, usually before Michael has viewed dailies.  Then we send him selected scenes to watch on DVD.  Just enough to get him excited – he doesn’t want to see everything.  Sometimes he’ll view an edited scene months before he’s actually viewed the dailies.  Occasionally he’ll give us verbal notes on cut scenes, but he’s pretty busy when he’s shooting, so they’re usually cursory.  My favorite part of the process is post.  Michael will come in and pull selects for whichever scene he’s focusing on at that moment.  Needless to say, he’s got a great eye.  You can then revisit your scene with the benefit of Michael’s input, and with an enhanced perspective.

GS: He shoots it, we cut it, then he pulls his selects and we re-cut the whole thing. With most films there are maybe five good ways you can cut a scene, but the way Michael shoots there are about twenty-five good ways to cut a scene, so the odds are against you getting it right the first time.

Did you have a first pass/editors cut of the material?

PR: Sure, but Michael doesn’t want to watch that cut as a ‘movie’.  For one thing, it’s bound to be too long.  So we’ll work on sections of the movie, and gradually get to the point where it’s beneficial to view the sum of the parts.  You can only have one first impression, so we try to wait until it will do us the most good.  When I was starting out as an editor, I felt territorial about the ‘editor’s’ cut.  That’s nonsense.  It’s just a concept.  The movie is a living, breathing, changing thing.

GS: It was the clothes-line school of editing, you string it all together, hang it out to dry, then pull it back in and recut most of it.  We didn’t look at the whole film, until half-way through the director’s cut.

How did the work flow between the two of you?

PR: Transformers overlapped with Miami Vice, so I came on toward the end of production.  Glen had already started.  The first few weeks of dailies were handled by Tom Muldoon, John Murray, and Todd Miller — three wonderful editors.  So we were in pretty good shape up to that point. Tom came back to help out for a few days here and there, and made some important contributions.When it eventually came down to Glen and me, we simply worked on whatever scenes needed work, without regard to who had originally cut them.  We run them for each other, and criticize them.  If you trust your co-editor, it’s a great way to work.  The movie will be better for it.  One plus one equals three.

GS: We were happy when either of us got something by Michael, he’s a tough critic. At different times each of us went into almost every scene and did something to further the cut.  Paul’s a great editor, and you want great co-editors when you corroborate, so you don’t have to worry about the other person screwing it up.

Glen, you worked with Michael during the earlier years with The Rock and then Armageddon. How has his direction in post changed over the years, if any?

GS: The hours are saner, we only work ten hours a day and no weekends. On Armageddon we had a short post schedule, Mark Goldblatt and I worked seven days a week for months. You burn out.   As for working with Michael, no one can rip up an edit, or a visual effect like he can with the singular pronouncement, “that sucks.”  He knows what he wants and he gets it.

How did you get your start in editing?

GS: I came out of the independent film world of San Francisco.  After cutting with Neil Young on a documentary, and Tom Waits on his concert film Big Time, I got my big break working for Zoetrope. I edited two low-budget features, including Lucas Reiner’s The Spirit of 76, on their first non-linear system which convinced Francis he could use the system on Godfather III.  I then worked with him at night for five months on the film, got my personal ‘film school of Francis’ diploma and an additional editor credit.  I then went on to cut Bram Stoker’s Dracula for him. Francis is a great editor, and I worked with Barry Malkin, and Walter Murch, you gotta learn something…

Paul, having done three features with Michael Mann, two of which resulted in Oscar nominations for you – what’s the magic in that relationship? 

PR: Caffeine.  And the fact that we like each other, and respect one another’s work.   I know when to lead and when to follow.  It’s a dialectical process.  Michael’s intellect is such that he can intimidate people without trying.  If you’re not careful, you can shut down in the face of it.  That’s frustrating for a director – they’re not getting the honest feedback they need.  You might be a genius, but that doesn’t mean you’re infallible.  The frustration can manifest in more intimidating behavior, so it becomes a negative feedback loop.  I try to tell the truth in a respectful and non-threatening way.

How did you get your start in editing? You had a strong background in TV and then made the transition to film without going back. Was film the greater interest?

PR: Actually, I started as an apprentice and assistant in features, working with Robert Altman and Sam Peckinpah, among others.  My first editing gigs were low-budget features.  The work wasn’t steady, so I decided to move to TV for a year or two, to develop my craft in a concentrated atmosphere and build up my bank balance and benefits.  I hooked up with a TV director I liked, and ten years flew by.  I wanted to get back to movies, but was shocked – shocked! – to find that I had been branded a “TV editor”.  There’s a caste system, as silly as it is unfair.  In TV, you learn to be fast, and you learn to be decisive.  You learn narrative editing within a strict time discipline.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Michael Kahn start in television?  I rest my case.

Do you ever see a change in that caste system?  

PR: Unlikely.  The best way to jump that divide — assuming that you want to, I know world-class editors who prefer the world of television — is to hook up with a director who takes you across.  For me, that guy was John Frankenheimer — to whom I’ll be forever grateful.  The truth is that when you climb from apprentice to assistant to editor, you’re not climbing a ladder so much as a pyramid.  It narrows at the top.  So a producer or director will tend to select an editor with a background similar to the project at hand.  It’s not just editors.  Actors, directors, writers, you name it — we’re all typecast.

Is there ever a way to avoid the pigeonhole? Even in film, you can get branded an action guy or a comedy guy, correct?

PR: The only way to avoid the pigeonhole is to just say no.  Don’t take that project if it’s too similar to the last one – even if they offer you a wheelbarrow full of money.  Well, maybe, if they offer you a wheelbarrow full of money.

Opening July 4^th, Transformers will certainly bring in its own wheelbarrows full of money and have you looking at everyday machinery in a whole new light.  The car next to you on the drive in, the blender in your kitchen, the watch on your wrist…there’s more than meets the eye.