The Energon Pub

Dead Metal wrote:I've looked at the hands of Starscream and Megatron and came to the conclusion that it must be Megatron's hands.
The fingers don't match up with Starscreams while they do with Megatron's, the yhave the same construction, design and layout even the same colouring.

Okay, does anyone remember that Starscream and Megatron aren't the only Decepticons? I'm not saying it's Starscream, but I'm saying there's no proof it's Megatron. It could be a lot of Decepticons.

Dead Metal wrote:Also there are tank threads in that scene:
http://dwteam.org/rotf/p7hg_img_3/fulls ... 626_fs.jpg
This gallery is great:
http://dwteam.org/rotf/
Now watch the spot in HD again and you'll notice that object behind him moving, like a foot.

I see something Cybertronian, but I don't think that's a foot. And all I see that resembles tank treads turns out not to be in the next pic. (Far left side on both images)

And even if it is a reformatted Megatron...why did he reformat but leave superficial damage like rust?

oldskooltf wrote:Yes... just about anything is possible I suppose... but (1) the leaked Megatron design was next to a design for a character that we do indeed see in the TV spot (that would be ravage) -- making it unlikely (although not impossible) that this leak was done for deliberate false advertising, and (2) the other leaked designs have come to be true (the twins, sideswipe) with the only exception that I remember being the Soundwave pick-up truck design -- which I believe/think they said it was pulled from RotF because they changed their mind. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

And I'm not trying to pick on you or your belief.....but useing that logic and applying it to the first film we should have gotten Arcee.

I'm not trying to stomp on the idea that Megatron may or may not be in the film....I'm just taking issue with the words and terms such as "most-likely" and "unlikely".Fact is no amount of confirmed designs is proof of the likely hood that all leaked designs will make it to film.

To put it in other words.....Ravage actually matching the leaked design for his character does not really strengthen the odds that Megatron or a character matching his design will make it to the final film.

There's no rhythm or rhyme to the method of movie making and character design.They can use 50 out of 51 designs if they chose.

Shadowman wrote:
And even if it is a reformatted Megatron...why did he reformat but leave superficial damage like rust?

That ones eazy to answer....could be his repair systems arent fully functional.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:
And even if it is a reformatted Megatron...why did he reformat but leave superficial damage like rust?

That ones eazy to answer....could be his repair systems arent fully functional.

If they have auto-repair systems why do they need medics like Ratchet?

Look at it this way; when Bumblebee reformatted in the first movie, he went from beaten up, rusty "piece of crap Camaro" into an immaculately clean Camaro that happened to be passing by.

As long as there is no clear sign that hugo weaving is doing megatron's voice then i don't think Megatron as seen in the first film is going to be in there. toys or no toys.
If hasbro can sell some new repaints of megatron, believe me... they will, they don't need him to be in the movie for that.
I think it's doubtful that they would pick another voice for a character that is this important.and its even more doubtful that Weaving would refuse a part like this.

the teaser does not tell you anything. the images are clearly unfinished and that "is that megatron" shot is definitely put in to keep everyone confused and taking about the movie.

personally I think that when you kill off a character then he needs to stay dead... otherwise there is no point in killing him.
If they bring him back that means starscream can't be a pain in the ass decepticon leader. I wouldn't want to miss that opportunity.

but hollywood has a reputation of pushing stuff too far so I would actually not be surprised if they bring him back for a very ridiculous reason.

I'm going in the theater with the lowest expectation as last time and hope be pleasantly surprised.
but Im more thrilled to see what is going to happen than last time.

Shadowman--I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I think we both have the same position, but there is one difference: I acknowledge the "proof" people have about Megatron. For some reason you are coming across as refusing to see anything that could be construed as Megatron.

Take the picture you linked . . . I made a few edits to show you what people are seeing. Now, I am not saying this is proof, but I can see why people think this is Megatron's leg.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb37 ... treads.jpg
http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/megatron1.jpg

Again, I think there is as much "proof" of Megatron being in the film as there is the Fallen being in the film. To quickly address your evidence:

1) I cannot count how many times movie posters have depicted something that was never shown in the movie. Star Wars is a classic example. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/267 ... 77.jpg?v=0 There was never anything of the sort in the movie, but here it is on the poster.

2) There is a toy Megatron in cybertron tank mode and Megatron, in this mode, is appearing on box art for other toys. Here are some links:

http://www.the-arker.com/UploadFiles/20 ... 553117.jpg
http://www.the-arker.com/UploadFiles/20 ... 041272.jpg
http://www.the-arker.com/UploadFiles/20 ... 430922.jpg
http://host.trivialbeing.org/up/small/t ... e-game.jpg
http://seibertron.com/images/toys/uploa ... ebeeV2.jpg
http://tformers.net/g/albums/10949/rotfmegs.jpg

It has already been pointed out, by you (and others), that a toy does not constitute an appearance in the movie. I just point out (above) that a teaser poster should not and cannot be used as evidence for something happening or being in a movie,

3) There is nothing directly indicating the words the Fallen in the title are a proper name. Many have argued, and only time will tell, if the words the Fallen in the title are a proper name for the character the Fallen or if they are a reference to something more vague like the fallen Decepticons.

Again, I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I just think you are being obstinate about the possibility of Megatron being in the movie. The proof you have for the Fallen being in the movie is no more solid (in fact I think it is more obscure) than what people are citing for Megatron.

St. Even wrote:Shadowman--I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I think we both have the same position, but there is one difference: I acknowledge the "proof" people have about Megatron. For some reason you are coming across as refusing to see anything that could be construed as Megatron.

Take the picture you linked . . . I made a few edits to show you what people are seeing. Now, I am not saying this is proof, but I can see why people think this is Megatron's leg.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb37 ... treads.jpg
http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/megatron1.jpg

Thank you. We can be done here now. You know we could have avoided a lot of stress if you had posted that earlier? It would have helped, because those treads, especially in the trailer, don't look like treads. They kind of look like Ironhide's chest.

As for your point on the Fallen, it is ridiculous. I know you only made it in an attempt to counter my arguments against Megatron, but it's completely ridiculous. You're saying that they named a character, designed him, gave him a toy, and put his face on the movie's poster, except that it's really not The Fallen, it's just a bunch of characters who died before, coming back to life. And that makes sense to you?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

oldskooltf wrote:Yes... just about anything is possible I suppose... but (1) the leaked Megatron design was next to a design for a character that we do indeed see in the TV spot (that would be ravage) -- making it unlikely (although not impossible) that this leak was done for deliberate false advertising, and (2) the other leaked designs have come to be true (the twins, sideswipe) with the only exception that I remember being the Soundwave pick-up truck design -- which I believe/think they said it was pulled from RotF because they changed their mind. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

And I'm not trying to pick on you or your belief.....but useing that logic and applying it to the first film we should have gotten Arcee.

I'm not trying to stomp on the idea that Megatron may or may not be in the film....I'm just taking issue with the words and terms such as "most-likely" and "unlikely".Fact is no amount of confirmed designs is proof of the likely hood that all leaked designs will make it to film.

To put it in other words.....Ravage actually matching the leaked design for his character does not really strengthen the odds that Megatron or a character matching his design will make it to the final film.

There's no rhythm or rhyme to the method of movie making and character design.They can use 50 out of 51 designs if they chose.

Shadowman wrote:
And even if it is a reformatted Megatron...why did he reformat but leave superficial damage like rust?

That ones eazy to answer....could be his repair systems arent fully functional.

You are the mastermind at finding exceptions... aren't you. I actually don't mind -- I kind of expect it. (I'm complimenting you)


The leaked Arcee photos from TF1 were real. She was at one point going to be in the movie but later pulled. That goes along with my three reasons/possibilities for the leaked movie design for Megatron for this new movie.

To me, it's 3 possibilities
(1) He is going to be in TF:RotF
(2) He was going to be in the new movie, but they've changed their minds -- but still will go ahead with the new toys cause they have the designs for it (like the Arcee design in the first movie)
(3) He is going to be in TF:RotF, but as Galvatron -- which would cover Michael Bay's statement.

Am I trying to say "this is the way it is" and there's no possible flaw in my thinking? No -- I'm human (or am I really a pretender... just kidding)

Shadowman wrote:If they have auto-repair systems why do they need medics like Ratchet?

Dude no insult but thats a very dumb and unimaginative question.And after all this time I'm shocked at you.

We have automatic repair systems of a sort and still need Doctors.

Plain and simple there are injuries that one can substane in life and war that our bodies cant heal on their own from.....which is why we have doctors and hospitals.

And its the same reason why TF's need medics like Ratchet.

Shadowman wrote:Look at it this way; when Bumblebee reformatted in the first movie, he went from beaten up, rusty "piece of crap Camaro" into an immaculately clean Camaro that happened to be passing by.

And it can be assumed that the rust on BB's older look was not really rust but there because he scaned a car that had rust on it.

And besides I'll say again any signs of rust on New Megs body could be the result of his repair systems not working well....while Bumblebees were operating at full capacity.

oldskooltf wrote:You are the mastermind at finding exceptions... aren't you. I actually don't mind -- I kind of expect it. (I'm complimenting you)

Thank you....I do my best to always keep a open mind so I always find the exceptions to every rule

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:We have automatic repair systems of a sort and still need Doctors.

Plain and simple there are injuries that one can substane in life and war that our bodies cant heal on their own from.....which is why we have doctors and hospitals.

And its the same reason why TF's need medics like Ratchet.

Try to remember, not only were his auto-repair systems blown, so was his Spark. Meaning if he reformatted, someone would have to help. And that someone would probably have the good sense to realize that Megatron's armor (Which, if you recall, he did not have that plating in the first movie) is being eating away by something that weakens and eventually disintegrates metals.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Look at it this way; when Bumblebee reformatted in the first movie, he went from beaten up, rusty "piece of crap Camaro" into an immaculately clean Camaro that happened to be passing by.

And it can be assumed that the rust on BB's older look was not really rust but there because he scaned a car that had rust on it.

And besides I'll say again any signs of rust on New Megs body could be the result of his repair systems not working well....while Bumblebees were operating at full capacity.

To reformat, Megatron would have to first find something as a basis, then modify his exterior and parts of his interior to be able to convert to that form. You'd think that the same ability that allows him to reform would also allow him to remove that structural damage.

...Wait a minute...

Why are we arguing about rust?!

Shadowman wrote:Try to remember, not only were his auto-repair systems blown, so was his Spark. Meaning if he reformatted, someone would have to help.

And how does the possibility that he was brought back with help change anything I've said?????

Shadowman wrote: And that someone would probably have the good sense to realize that Megatron's armor (Which, if you recall, he did not have that plating in the first movie) is being eating away by something that weakens and eventually disintegrates metals.

I'm not trying to be rude but I dont see your point.

Even if he got help in coming back it does not mean that the person or robot that brought him back either had the ability or the time to effect a completely repair of Megatrons body.

It could be that he or it only had enough time to repair Megatrons higher function....meaning give him a spark.

Shadowman wrote:To reformat, Megatron would have to first find something as a basis,

Not necessarily.....he could reformat himself ton an older design from his past, something from his memory core or something that could have been imputed into his reformatting program by the person or bot that brought him back to life.

Shadowman wrote: then modify his exterior and parts of his interior to be able to convert to that form. You'd think that the same ability that allows him to reform would also allow him to remove that structural damage.

You would assume....if the program is working at full capacity and isint also working at the same time to repair higher functions.

Think about it this way.....when a persons has been injured to a great degree and their bodies fighting to heal itself, the common cold might end up killing that person.

So maybe Megatrons repair system and reformatting program are so over taxxed that it couldnt repair the minor structural damage issues that the rust is.

You can also look at rust as germs to a TF.

Rust does carry different types or Bactria, and rust caused by time under water even more so.

It could be that the Bactria in the rust is causeing a issue for his repair program much like foot fungus.

Shadowman wrote:...Wait a minute...

Why are we arguing about rust?!

Actually I'm not.....you brought it up.

BTW we're not arguing....we're talking

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:...Wait a minute...

Why are we arguing about rust?!

Actually I'm not.....you brought it up.

BTW we're not arguing....we're talking

I just wondered why Megatron rebuilt himself/was rebuilt by someone why he/they left rust. And then we turn it into a massive debate on the mechanics of fictional robots who haven't had those mechanics explained yet.

You and me? I think we may be a bit too much into TFs arguments.

I have one more comment before friday when i believe we will find out more about megs. Most of us believe the trailer shots depict megs holding down sam...

so new question due to what we've been discussing..

Which do you think Michael Bay is more prone to do..

1) Have a scene in the trailer that won't show up in the movie

or

2) Lie about Megatron being in the movie as Megatron

or

3) Tell the truth about Megs not being in the movie by having his name changed in the movie

?

I still think #3 is the more viable option.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:...Wait a minute...

Why are we arguing about rust?!

Actually I'm not.....you brought it up.

BTW we're not arguing....we're talking

I just wondered why Megatron rebuilt himself/was rebuilt by someone why he/they left rust. And then we turn it into a massive debate on the mechanics of fictional robots who haven't had those mechanics explained yet.

You and me? I think we may be a bit too much into TFs arguments.

The "Who's" and the "Why" will hopfully be explained in the film....althu I have my doubts they will.

But as I pointed out there are a few logical reasons for all of it.

And you might be right about the 2 of us

crashbarbarian wrote:I have one more comment before friday when i believe we will find out more about megs. Most of us believe the trailer shots depict megs holding down sam...

so new question due to what we've been discussing..

Which do you think Michael Bay is more prone to do..

1) Have a scene in the trailer that won't show up in the movie

or

2) Lie about Megatron being in the movie as Megatron

or

3) Tell the truth about Megs not being in the movie by having his name changed in the movie

?

I still think #3 is the more viable option.

And how would you determin what he's more prone to do???

If it by actions in his history I'll go with option 1].

I've seen a few of his trailers with scenes that didnt make it to film.

A friend of mine that works at Hasbro (and I think he thought this was comon knowledge...) came up to me and said... "..aint it cool that Unicron is reviving Megatron as Galvatron.." I dont know how true this is but that is what he said

Kique wrote:A friend of mine that works at Hasbro (and I think he thought this was comon knowledge...) came up to me and said... "..aint it cool that Unicron is reviving Megatron as Galvatron.." I dont know how true this is but that is what he said

Working at Hasbro doesn't mean he's working on the movie.

That toy of the Fallen posted a few pages back...

Looks alot like BM Obsidian in robot mode. He's alot more show accurate than the toy of BM Obsidian except for the legs.

The vehicle mode or at least what I can see of it looks like the same vehicle mode Megatron had in the first movie.

I'm not even a fan of the comics and yet that pisses me off. The Fallen is a big flameing TANK. He doesn't even have flames. (Before someone makes a comment about a toy haveing flames look at the toy for the original Fallen.)

I allso found this picture that looks better from that toy image but still not what the Fallen should be.


http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Imag ... -photo.jpg

He looks partly organic to me, like there's some alien creature wearing battle armor.

Saber Prime wrote:That toy of the Fallen posted a few pages back...

Looks alot like BM Obsidian in robot mode. He's alot more show accurate than the toy of BM Obsidian except for the legs.

The vehicle mode or at least what I can see of it looks like the same vehicle mode Megatron had in the first movie.

I'm not even a fan of the comics and yet that pisses me off. The Fallen is a big flameing TANK. He doesn't even have flames. (Before someone makes a comment about a toy haveing flames look at the toy for the original Fallen.)

I allso found this picture that looks better from that toy image but still not what the Fallen should be.


http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Imag ... -photo.jpg

He looks partly organic to me, like there's some alien creature wearing battle armor.

I believe, I repeat, I BELIEVE that some of the areas you see painted red will be CGI'd fire in the film.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:That toy of the Fallen posted a few pages back...

Looks alot like BM Obsidian in robot mode. He's alot more show accurate than the toy of BM Obsidian except for the legs.

The vehicle mode or at least what I can see of it looks like the same vehicle mode Megatron had in the first movie.

I'm not even a fan of the comics and yet that pisses me off. The Fallen is a big flameing TANK. He doesn't even have flames. (Before someone makes a comment about a toy haveing flames look at the toy for the original Fallen.)

I allso found this picture that looks better from that toy image but still not what the Fallen should be.


http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Imag ... -photo.jpg

He looks partly organic to me, like there's some alien creature wearing battle armor.

I believe, I repeat, I BELIEVE that some of the areas you see painted red will be CGI'd fire in the film.

Still not as cool as this guy.

Saber Prime wrote:
Still not as cool as this guy.

That is a matter of opinion.......althu I personally agree at this time.

But I reserve final judgment till I see how the character translates to film.

I was speaking about appearance only. The original Fallen is much more menicing looking where as the movie version looks like a tooth pick.

It's like compairing Arnold Swatzenegger with Nepolean Dynomite.

Saber Prime wrote:I was speaking about appearance only. The original Fallen is much more menicing looking where as the movie version looks like a tooth pick.

It's like compairing Arnold Swatzenegger with Nepolean Dynomite.

I'm not sure I would agree.

Bays Fallen has a "Aliens" look to it while the original from the comics had a G1'ish block'ish look.

Which would you be more afraid of in a dark ally????

For me it wouldnt be the "Aliens" looking robot.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:I was speaking about appearance only. The original Fallen is much more menicing looking where as the movie version looks like a tooth pick.

It's like compairing Arnold Swatzenegger with Nepolean Dynomite.

I'm not sure I would agree.

Bays Fallen has a "Aliens" look to it while the original from the comics had a G1'ish block'ish look.

Which would you be more afraid of in a dark ally????

For me it wouldnt be the "Aliens" looking robot.

Yeah he does kinda look blocky but that's why he looks more menicing. He looks stronger, more invoulnerable, like he could crush anything in his path.

Bay's version looks like all you have to do is cut it's several exsposed wires and then no more Fallen of course that's the problem with all Bayformers, too many exsposed wires.

Comic Fallen allso looks more like a robot where as Movie Fallen looks like an alien with power armor.

Basically Comic Fallen could kick Movie Fallen's @$$. He may be slower but he's stronger and not as volnerable.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:I was speaking about appearance only. The original Fallen is much more menicing looking where as the movie version looks like a tooth pick.

It's like compairing Arnold Swatzenegger with Nepolean Dynomite.

I'm not sure I would agree.

Bays Fallen has a "Aliens" look to it while the original from the comics had a G1'ish block'ish look.

Which would you be more afraid of in a dark ally????

For me it wouldnt be the "Aliens" looking robot.

Yeah he does kinda look blocky but that's why he looks more menicing. He looks stronger, more invoulnerable, like he could crush anything in his path.

Bay's version looks like all you have to do is cut it's several exsposed wires and then no more Fallen of course that's the problem with all Bayformers, too many exsposed wires.

Comic Fallen allso looks more like a robot where as Movie Fallen looks like an alien with power armor.

Basically Comic Fallen could kick Movie Fallen's @$$. He may be slower but he's stronger and not as volnerable.

Maybe....but the problem with the "Blockish Robot" look is that its just not scary.

Nor is it a realistic idea of what Alien robots might look like.

I dont like Bay's designs....but I do understand the thinking behind them.

I just with he would do more with the faces.....I could live with his over all designs [in most cases] is he just made more of the faces to look like their G1 counterparts.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Maybe....but the problem with the "Blockish Robot" look is that its just not scary.

Sure it is, espesially when it's a giant flaming robot.

Besides he transforms into a TANK and a tank is basically a block on treds with a huge gun on the top. I don't think anyone won't find that scary. I mean, what can a tank do to you except run you over or fire it's huge cannon at you, either way, you're dead.

Nor is it a realistic idea of what Alien robots might look like.

This doesn't make alot of sence. Who are you or Bay to decided what a realistic idea of an unrealistic thing is supose to look like? You can't possibly predict what is and isn't realistic in a non-realistic world.

The only way to judge realisum is in real world terms, and in that case neither is the least bit more real than the other. Here's the problem with the thinking behind the movie designs.

1. While I would agree the Blocky designs can't possibly be agile enough to be battle ready the Movie designs have the oppisite problem. They have too many exsposed wires and not enough armor to be battle ready. There needs to be some kind of middle ground were a Transformer can have it's mobility without the loss of it's armor otherwise they're so vulnerable a child could easily kill the most dangerous Decepticons.

2. The lack of any "transforming" eliments in the designs. They don't look like they can actully Transform at all. If they did the alt modes would be broken bent up vehicles not sleek new sports cars. G1 Transformers typically utilized the cracks that allready exsisted in their vehicle modes (Doors, hood, trunk, ect.) and didn't add much more "damage" to the vehicles than what was allready there. There are cases where a crack goes right through the hood and windshield which really doesn't help my case here but my point is that the cartoon designs had alot less added cracks then the movie designs. My idea of a more realistic Transformer would be one where the cracks on the vehicle mode are the transforming componants with no added stuff because if it wear real the Transformers would all look exactly like their toys.

That being said, the Alternators are the most realistic Transformers in exsistance. I don't even own any of them (no money) but I know two things about them. Their vehicle modes look like real vehicles and their robot modes look like Transforming robots.

Movie designs look like walking piles of scrap metal and wires.

I just with he would do more with the faces.....I could live with his over all designs [in most cases] is he just made more of the faces to look like their G1 counterparts.

I could live with any crapy design as long as the story is good.

I hated the Beast Machines designs just as much as the movie designs but it's still one of my favorite series. The difference, Beast Machines told a good story, one I thought was ended to early because there's still alot of unesplained holes from the gap after Beast Wars. The first movie to me felt like one long preview to be perfectly honest. Too many humans, not enough Transformers = I'm still waiting for a live action Transformers movie to come out. This is the only reason I'm even giveing Bay another chance with the second movie. That and because the long Preview was still better than Armada.

I'm hopeing with the bigger budget the plot will be more Transformers involved than just seeing how their presence on Earth effects the humans and... exsplosions all over the place.

As long as the plot is decent I can deal with all the other crap.

BTW It looks like one of the new Autobots, Skids, is going to be a prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHtjGBXi ... re=related
OK so actully it's a Beat but it looks like a prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4wfilTe-o

Saber Prime wrote:Sure it is, espesially when it's a giant flaming robot.

Besides he transforms into a TANK and a tank is basically a block on treds with a huge gun on the top. I don't think anyone won't find that scary. I mean, what can a tank do to you except run you over or fire it's huge cannon at you, either way, you're dead.

And yet not scary.

How can I put it??????

Lets see..........you can be afraid of being shot but a bullet is not as scary as a shark.

A tank by itself is not real danger......but what makes it dangerous is the man driving.

Granted this would be a tank that drives itself but thats not someing your going to no or feel just by looking at it.

And even a giant robot thats on fire isint going to look as scary as a weird ulgly alien looking thing.
Being afraid of

Saber Prime wrote:This doesn't make alot of sence.

Sure it does if your not being argumentative.......

Saber Prime wrote: Who are you or Bay to decided what a realistic idea of an unrealistic thing is supose to look like?

The idea of alien life based on other eliments is not un-realistic.

Saber Prime wrote: You can't possibly predict what is and isn't realistic in a non-realistic world.

Actually you can if your charged with creating or reinterpreting that world.

Which, wether we like it or not, Bay was.

Saber Prime wrote:The only way to judge realisum is in real world terms, and in that case neither is the least bit more real than the other.

Not nesseseraly.

It is realistic to assume that alien living robots would need some kind of internal mechanizems.

The movie designs give the impression that those mechanizems lies beneath the super-structures of their bodies.

The movie designs leave a lot of room for the imagination.....the G1 designs dont.

Saber Prime wrote: Here's the problem with the thinking behind the movie designs.

1. While I would agree the Blocky designs can't possibly be agile enough to be battle ready the Movie designs have the oppisite problem. They have too many exsposed wires and not enough armor to be battle ready. There needs to be some kind of middle ground were a Transformer can have it's mobility without the loss of it's armor otherwise they're so vulnerable a child could easily kill the most dangerous Decepticons.

I'll agree that a middle ground would be a better way to go.....but in all honesty your describing the same issues the army has with creating body armor for soldiers.

I find that interesting.

Saber Prime wrote:2. The lack of any "transforming" eliments in the designs. They don't look like they can actully Transform at all. If they did the alt modes would be broken bent up vehicles not sleek new sports cars.

This may be true....but thats where imagination comes into play.

Saber Prime wrote: That being said, the Alternators are the most realistic Transformers in exsistance. I don't even own any of them (no money) but I know two things about them. Their vehicle modes look like real vehicles and their robot modes look like Transforming robots.

I agree with you.....but they wouldnt be the most effective fighters.

Most of the alternators are very top heavy and that would be an issue in a war.

Saber Prime wrote:I could live with any crapy design as long as the story is good.

Agreed

Saber Prime wrote:BTW It looks like one of the new Autobots, Skids, is going to be a prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHtjGBXi ... re=related
OK so actully it's a Beat but it looks like a prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4wfilTe-o

Do you like that car???