The Energon Pub

by **Swerve** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:12 pm

Not to butt in on this debate but wouldn't Astrotrain really have to be like his G1 counterpart? I mean it's in his freaking name, "Astrotrain". It doesn't leave a whole lot of possibilities for Alt modes.

by **Nightracer GT** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:55 am

Astrotrain87 wrote:"I want them to be in the movie just name it some thing else" is not a good counter point.

Sure it is. They did it all the time in the first movie. A character that looked like Vortex was Blackout. The original Blackout was half a micromaster spy plane. A character that barely resembled Soundwave due to alt mode only was called Frenzy, but it was never said so everybody assumed it was Soundwave.

Names don't matter. They were gonna call Blackout "Soundwave" at one point. We were following the prepoduction of the movie on this site. Then it was gonna be Vortex for a while. Hell, they called a character that looked and acted just like Brawl "Devastator"! The fact that they didn't fix that should be enough to convince you that names don't really matter.

Astrotrain87 wrote:You named it "some worries about TF2" when its all about why you want your favorites in the movie.Maybe your favorites are different from others?

It's not about why I want my favorites. It's about why I want certain characters who have staying power and value to the overall franchise, and why people shouldn't dog on them for old cartoon reasons. One of my favorites, Scorponok, was already in the first movie. The other, Fort Max, I'm not pushing for, though it would be cool if they named Bay's aircraft carrier bot Fort Max, but I'd rather see other things.

Astrotrain87 wrote:
Dark Zarak wrote:Among other things, I make the statement that they don't have to merge into Devastator. They just combine into some kind of general robot. Or how about the idea that it's one character that transforms into several different construction vehicles?

What's wrong with that?

that doesn't draw from the fact that their 6 of the same types of vehicles
and combiners have a major hole in their existence in the fact why don't they just STAY combined until they complete their objective?Its messy and won't make sense in the 2009 movie.

Don't have to be 6. There could be 3 or even 2. It's not messy to have a single character that splits off into 2 or 3 seperate vehicles. Not any more messy than the first movie already was.

Astrotrain87 wrote:you used G1 to draw an example of Astrotrain.Does that mean your hung up on G1? if I made a thread ranting that I wanted Persecptor
in the movie,wouldn't you draw examples from G1 to rebut this?

Perceptor would be cool, and I would not draw on G1, because any alt mode is better than a microscope for this movie.

I used G1 to talk about Astrotrain because like Swerve said, what else can he be but his G1 mode with a name like that? I find it hard to understand why you think a triplechanger that goes from a train to a shuttle (with or without mass shifting) is less messy than a character that splits off into 2 or 3 vehicles when he transforms.

Astrotrain87 wrote:I noticed you avoided the fact that 6 CGI models will take away from the cast of 'cons.

If devastator is in TF 2 we ONLY get devastator CGI takes time and money and I don't see this movie getting an unlimited budget to
make sure all the fan favorites make it in there

That is a good point, but they did make more models than what actually made it into the first movie, such as Arcee, and Shockwave in the game.

Also, I see them having a larger budget this time around, considering that they greenlighted TF2 before the first movie was even released officially. The public's hype alone was enough to get egg all over the studio execs' faces who had turned down Murphy and DeSanto so many times before.

by **Deadpool.** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:05 am

Dark Zarak wrote:
Names don't matter. They were gonna call Blackout "Soundwave" at one point. We were following the prepoduction of the movie on this site. Then it was gonna be Vortex for a while. Hell, they called a character that looked and acted just like Brawl "Devastator"! The fact that they didn't fix that should be enough to convince you that names don't really matter.

Agreed. The names were highly variable, Blackout was also gonna be called "Incinerator" or something.

Dark Zarak wrote:
Astrotrain87 wrote:
that doesn't draw from the fact that their 6 of the same types of vehicles
and combiners have a major hole in their existence in the fact why don't they just STAY combined until they complete their objective?Its messy and won't make sense in the 2009 movie.

Don't have to be 6. There could be 3 or even 2. It's not messy to have a single character that splits off into 2 or 3 seperate vehicles. Not any more messy than the first movie already was.

This was shown in RID, where there were 3/4-membered combiners.

Dark Zarak wrote:I find it hard to understand why you think a triplechanger that goes from a train to a shuttle (with or without mass shifting) is less messy than a character that splits off into 2 or 3 vehicles when he transforms.

If this happens, Astrotrain is gonna be really hollow in Spaceshuttle mode, and reallly dense in train mode...

Dark Zarak wrote:
Astrotrain87 wrote:I noticed you avoided the fact that 6 CGI models will take away from the cast of 'cons.

If devastator is in TF 2 we ONLY get devastator CGI takes time and money and I don't see this movie getting an unlimited budget to
make sure all the fan favorites make it in there

That is a good point, but they did make more models than what actually made it into the first movie, such as Arcee, and Shockwave in the game.

Also, I see them having a larger budget this time around, considering that they greenlighted TF2 before the first movie was even released officially. The public's hype alone was enough to get egg all over the studio execs' faces who had turned down Murphy and DeSanto so many times before.

Yes, the budget is higher for TF2. And Wreckage also had a CGI model but it wasnt used.

by **Raven Guard** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:14 pm

Soundwave wrote:Cunstructicons inferior

I stand by Soundwave's point.Consuction vehicles are not the BEST THING EVAR!!!I don't remember longing to be a construction crew member after seeing them.I don't remember harassing my mother for constucticons.I remember going to the KB toys and seeing those guys stay put as the combaticons sold fast,hell I still even have my Blast-off that I unearthed from my lego toy box some time ago.Those guys did nothing for Transformers compared to other landmark characters.If they do have CGI models of Arcee,why did you make the same counter point against her?
I hope we see some more concept tanks and some nice foreign aircraft,AA-guns,tanks, Merkavas,T-80s or some APCs or Avengers,V-22s,AH-64s,maybe even a RAH-66 instead of a cement mixer
and a crane.

by **Raven Guard** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:50 pm

also on Astrotrain.Theirs an aircraft thats called the "Skytrain" its not a train and is a transport. The name Astrotrain can be used to denote such.
Blackout was described as a transport so there you have it. Astrotrain could be a C-5 galaxy transport,witch could carry at least some of the 'cons.

by **Nightracer GT** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:13 am

Astrotrain87 wrote:also on Astrotrain.Theirs an aircraft thats called the "Skytrain" its not a train and is a transport. The name Astrotrain can be used to denote such.
Blackout was described as a transport so there you have it. Astrotrain could be a C-5 galaxy transport,witch could carry at least some of the 'cons.

Okay, that would be cool. I'd be a fan of an Astrotrain that turned into that.

Astrotrain87 wrote:Consuction vehicles are not the BEST THING EVAR!!!I don't remember longing to be a construction crew member after seeing them.I don't remember harassing my mother for constucticons.I remember going to the KB toys and seeing those guys stay put as the combaticons sold fast,

Have you seen Terminator 3? Crane trucks do a hell of a lot more damage than you think. They don't just sit there and swivel.

I'm picturing a huge crane truck like the one in T3, and one of those giant ore trucks like Long Haul used to be. You do realize those things are twenty feet high? You do realize they are too big for the road and are deemed unfit for highway travel, right?

When people think of construction vehicles are they thinking of piddly little bulldozers and dump trucks? I'm talking earth movers. I'm talking vehicles that are as high as Prime in robot mode. This is Michael Bay. How could he not have something like that crashing through a city and causing so much mayhem? For God's sake.

Astrotrain87 wrote:If they do have CGI models of Arcee,why did you make the same counter point against her?

You're right. I did say she would detract. I don't really care one way or another about Arcee anymore though.

Astrotrain87 wrote:I hope we see some more concept tanks and some nice foreign aircraft,AA-guns,tanks, Merkavas,T-80s or some APCs or Avengers,V-22s,AH-64s,maybe even a RAH-66 instead of a cement mixer and a crane.

Yes, those would be cool, and I'm sure they'll be bad ass in the movie, but they're so small compared to a real crane. Why can't there be both?

News Credits: 2 · by **Insurgent** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:21 pm

I love Dev and would love to see him in the movie, even if they do screw him up.

As for vehicles, I made a list for my fanfic. They are:

120 ton truck mounted crane like in Terminator3.

HITACHI EX8000 EXCAVATOR

Case 325 Articulated Dump Truck

Komatsu D575a Bulldozer (pics are being stupid for that one)

ADVANCE CEMENT TRUCK

Truck mounted drilling rig

The vehicles are big so Dev can tower over people without having to mass shift, and why wouldn't they use civillian disguises? Of course, it would have to be a plot point why they are those vehicles, but if I can come up with something, professional script writers should be able to as well.

Although if they went for the militaristic side of things, I would not be aversed to seeing Bruticus.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:57 pm

Astrotrain87 wrote:also on Astrotrain.Theirs an aircraft thats called the "Skytrain" its not a train and is a transport. The name Astrotrain can be used to denote such.

errrrr yes. That's how they explained the recent club exclusive Astrotrain.
Which i'm sure was already discussed a few pages back.

News Credits: 44 · by **optibotimus** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:53 pm

i'm new here so please be nice to me lol

But my opinion is Devastator wouldn't be a very good addition to the second film in my opinion and here is why.

The constructicons required 6 guys to form one huge one. We all know that. Now micheal bay has gone over and over again saying he doesn't want mass shifting and such. Construction vehicles are huge by themselves. Now imagine 2 of em standing on their hoods...vertically. That makes em roughly as big as a transformer in his robot mode. Now put two more transformers on top of those. It's just WAY too big in my opinion and wouldn't contribute to the believablity that these things are real and living on our planet.

In terms of the Dinobots. Again, realism comes into play. The autobots are suppose to take the appearence of vehicles and such to hide. Robotic looking dinosaurs, walking around, isn't exactly my idea of being hidden.

by **Swerve** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:16 pm

Here comes the modest and petitie Long Haul rolling into your town, unmenacing and incapable of reeking mass destruction:

or

by **Deadpool.** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Swerve wrote:Here comes the modest and petitie Long Haul rolling into your town, unmenacing and incapable of reeking mass destruction:

or

The think the orange one looks more LongHaul-ish in terms of design...

by **Nightracer GT** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:39 am

optibotimus wrote:i'm new here so please be nice to me lol

But my opinion is Devastator wouldn't be a very good addition to the second film in my opinion and here is why.

The constructicons required 6 guys to form one huge one. We all know that. Now micheal bay has gone over and over again saying he doesn't want mass shifting and such. Construction vehicles are huge by themselves. Now imagine 2 of em standing on their hoods...vertically. That makes em roughly as big as a transformer in his robot mode. Now put two more transformers on top of those. It's just WAY too big in my opinion and wouldn't contribute to the believablity that these things are real and living on our planet.

In terms of the Dinobots. Again, realism comes into play. The autobots are suppose to take the appearence of vehicles and such to hide. Robotic looking dinosaurs, walking around, isn't exactly my idea of being hidden.

May I suggest the possibility that you're not thinking of all the options? There don't have to be 6 or even 4 constructicons. 2 would be enough, and why does huge equal not believable? They'd only be as big as vehicles that are already huge. And why do the dinobots have to "turn into dinosaurs"? Why can't they be triple changers? Why can't they be vehicles that have dinosoid looking robot modes? Why can't they just be the characters with paintings of dinosaurs on their hulls like Bonecrusher's bulldog?

One thing we talk about a lot here is that the movie is not G1. It can have classic characters without conforming to cartoon designs.

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... 22081&sid=

by **Nemesis Cyberplex** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:35 am

Deadpool. wrote:
Swerve wrote:Here comes the modest and petitie Long Haul rolling into your town, unmenacing and incapable of reeking mass destruction:

or

The think the orange one looks more LongHaul-ish in terms of design...

either way, if the other ones were just as big, that would be one kick-ass devastator we'd have.

& besides, 2 or 3 constructicons wouldn't be as impressive-looking as seeing 5 or 6 slowly & intricately merging into a robot that would tower over the other TFs in the way the regular TFs tower over humans.

by **Deadpool.** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:27 am

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:
Deadpool. wrote:
Swerve wrote:Here comes the modest and petitie Long Haul rolling into your town, unmenacing and incapable of reeking mass destruction:

or

The think the orange one looks more LongHaul-ish in terms of design...
either way, if the other ones were just as big, that would be one kick-ass devastator we'd have.

& besides, 2 or 3 constructicons wouldn't be as impressive-looking as seeing 5 or 6 slowly & intricately merging into a robot that would tower over the other TFs in the way the regular TFs tower over humans.

Doesnt matter much....

They are gonna merge in fast-transformations anyway, so it's not quite grand either.

News Credits: 44 · by **optibotimus** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:05 pm

Dark Zarak wrote:
optibotimus wrote:i'm new here so please be nice to me lol

But my opinion is Devastator wouldn't be a very good addition to the second film in my opinion and here is why.

The constructicons required 6 guys to form one huge one. We all know that. Now micheal bay has gone over and over again saying he doesn't want mass shifting and such. Construction vehicles are huge by themselves. Now imagine 2 of em standing on their hoods...vertically. That makes em roughly as big as a transformer in his robot mode. Now put two more transformers on top of those. It's just WAY too big in my opinion and wouldn't contribute to the believablity that these things are real and living on our planet.

In terms of the Dinobots. Again, realism comes into play. The autobots are suppose to take the appearence of vehicles and such to hide. Robotic looking dinosaurs, walking around, isn't exactly my idea of being hidden.

May I suggest the possibility that you're not thinking of all the options? There don't have to be 6 or even 4 constructicons. 2 would be enough, and why does huge equal not believable? They'd only be as big as vehicles that are already huge. And why do the dinobots have to "turn into dinosaurs"? Why can't they be triple changers? Why can't they be vehicles that have dinosoid looking robot modes? Why can't they just be the characters with paintings of dinosaurs on their hulls like Bonecrusher's bulldog?

One thing we talk about a lot here is that the movie is not G1. It can have classic characters without conforming to cartoon designs.

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... 22081&sid=

i actually agree about the dinobots. It would be tough though because they are suppose to transform into dinosaurs. Just like optimus was a semi, bumblebee and jazz were cars, ratchett a "suv" type and starscream as a jet. It's been fairly accurate in terms of style in my opinion. So i don't know what they'd do for that. I know they proobably won't be triple changers. That's just not gonna happen, it would be way to expensive. Since they're going to be brand new characters and the CGI is way to expensive and time consuming. Not only would they have to do robot to alt mode and then just reverse that process. They'd have to be able to do robot to car and reverse it....and robot to dinosaur and reverse it...maybe car to dinosaur and reverse it. It would involved probably into the 100,000 different movie parts, CGI wise ( i think i remember them saying prime had like 40k moving parts). I just don't think that's a real possibility.

And with Devasator. Again, the sheer size is just unbelieveable because you would have to use more then just 2 transformers for it. If you didn't you'd probably have more people offering death threats to micheal bay lol. Perhaps i'm just unable to visualize it when the idea of each robot making up a limb of devastator is so pronounce in my mind.