The Energon Pub

News Credits: 15 · by **Ravage XK** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:00 pm

Suggests Animated 2.0 to me. Not a fan of the look but will give it a chance. Just so long as it is proper hand drawn and not computer 2d crap.

by **Rated X** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:10 pm

More spawn of Michael Bay. The last show free of his influence was the animated series. They might as well have just tf prime, I see no difference in aesthetic. Is this CGI or animated ? I hope its animated. Being a big fan of obscure characters, the limits of using CGI never appealed to my tastes.

by **ausbot** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:40 pm

As long as its not like animated I will be ok with it.

by **Ultra Markus** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:32 pm

as long as there are plenty of characters and a lot of good action
and some decent story arcs and stuff

News Credits: 54 · by **Deadput** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:38 pm

Rated X wrote:More spawn of Michael Bay. The last show free of his influence was the animated series. They might as well have just tf prime, I see no difference in aesthetic. Is this CGI or animated ? I hope its animated. Being a big fan of obscure characters, the limits of using CGI never appealed to my tastes.

My god i can't begin to say how idiotic that comment was.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:43 pm

This is the best argument I've seen for how this is more closer to Prime's aesthetic than Animated's:

There are a lot of layered panels and free-hanging bits on the Bumblebee, where the Animated designs looked more "solid," with things like [Animated Optimus] Prime's wheels looking embedded into or almost sculpted into the sides of his ankles. In Animated, that whole layered jacket of armor would have been one big polygon with Bee's torso; over his whole body, there are lots of little angles and joints in the plates that would have read as flat with a seam in Animated. Look at the complicated outline around the ankles, too - the silhouettes in Animated try to tie things up more than that, lots of convex shapes. The proportions are also more Primey (thicker thighs, bulky arms) and there's more a sense of material properties, shading, and dimension. The only thing that stands out as "superflat" or "2D and loving it" about Bee is his right hand.

Then there's the face, which is, well, "just Prime." Prime inherited Animated's lack of noses, and this style inherits it back. Everything else about that face, down to the crazy eyebrows and the utter lack of anything resembling lips, just reads as a simplified version of the Prime style. The eyes could have followed the Animated look, but they don't - they manage to look like glowing spheres with the little ring, not just a lamp behind a translucent plate.

Anything else they have in common, like the sharp edges and bright colors and the general kind of economy of line they both make use of, is all basically common to American animation for TV in general, particularly actiony shows.

I think there might have been hints taken from Animated, since Prime's own style was influenced by it, as a sort of frog DNA to fill in the gaps in translating the look back into two dimensions, but that's pure Prime.

News Credits: 3 · by **Shockwave7** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:04 pm

...

Well, I was equally leery when I saw the first shots of 'Trasnformers Animated', but I wound up liking it. So I'll give it a chance. Initial impressions?

1) This doesn't look like a '3d character' at all. It looks quite hand drawn. A cartoon filter, perhaps? Or is this simply a sketched mock-up of how they're planning to render the character's 3D model?

2) As others have said: 'Oh. Bumblebee. AGAIN. Great...' (What happened to the suits from Hasbro bragging about how they were 'planning to step away' from this for a while...?)

3) Looks like Picasso attacked Bumblebee with 'the ugly stick'.

But, as I say, maybe it'll grow on me like TFA did. One thing's a cert, though. I'm NOT buying another Bumblebee figure.

by **Balgus82** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:09 pm

Does anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.

News Credits: 25 · by **VirusCarnage** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:11 pm

Balgus82 wrote:Doesn anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.

I didn't even look at the feet until you mentioned it, but they don't bug me.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:12 pm

Balgus82 wrote:Doesn anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.

They don't look flat to me. You can see a shadow/shading on them to show the depth and dimension of them angling diagonally upward towards the ankles.

by **Chandler Prime 1** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:12 pm

Well crap I guess this means no Peter Cullen/Optimus Prime. If thats the case Im not to sure Ill be watchin.

News Credits: 1 · by **Flakmaster** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:24 pm

He has a face.

This is the first non-comic incident of this since, what, Animated?

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:26 pm

Flakmaster wrote:He has a face.

This is the first non-comic incident of this since, what, Animated?

Since the last episode and epilogue movie of Prime.

News Credits: 15 · by **PrymeStriker** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:52 pm

Hell Yeah!

Can't wait to watch this new series!

by **griftimus prime** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:54 pm

horrible

News Credits: 1 · by **Flakmaster** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:01 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
Flakmaster wrote:He has a face.

This is the first non-comic incident of this since, what, Animated?
Since the last episode and epilogue movie of Prime.

My apologies. I've failed to keep up with TF:Prime and its related media.

by **hinomars19** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:30 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
Balgus82 wrote:Doesn anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.
They don't look flat to me. You can see a shadow/shading on them to show the depth and dimension of them angling diagonally upward towards the ankles.

I'm sorry, what?

There is zero depth and dimension in those legs/ feet. The lower half of the image almost looks like it has been warped. They are as flat as hell. I'm sorry but seeing a bit of 'shading' and using your imagination to fill the gap between actual art critique and a skewed vision to stay on the good side of an image is appalling.

Look at this image with an un-biased eye please-those legs are flat. You can like the image all you want, but those legs are badly drawn and show zero perspective or depth.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:41 pm

hinomars19 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
Balgus82 wrote:Doesn anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.
They don't look flat to me. You can see a shadow/shading on them to show the depth and dimension of them angling diagonally upward towards the ankles.

I'm sorry, what?

There is zero depth and dimension in those legs/ feet. The lower half of the image almost looks like it has been warped. They are as flat as hell. I'm sorry but seeing a bit of 'shading' and using your imagination to fill the gap between actual art critique and a skewed vision to stay on the good side of an image is appalling.

Look at this image with an un-biased eye please-those legs are flat. You can like the image all you want, but those legs are badly drawn and show zero perspective or depth.

*whispering* Pssst, hey. I just wanted to let you know that that picture is a two-dimensional painting presented on a flat surface. Just like this one is. Good? Good. :-$

News Credits: 1 · by **Bumblevivisector** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:59 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
OptimusPrimeval wrote:
Windsweeper wrote:Rescue Bots suffered from the same problem, to me at least, as Animated. Great Transformers characterisations but childish situations/ human villains.

I would gladly take ten Nanosecs or Mastersons over one Raf! Human villains are much better than human protagonists, and human protagonists are only good when they turn out to be transformers! But it would be nice to have a series with no humans in it.
Beast Machines already happened.

Beast Machines made some horrible mistakes that Hasbro has wisely not allowed subsequent series to repeat, but excising humanity was not one of them; I too would like to see that tried again. I don't want to bog down this thread with the details Beast Machines' levels of wrongness, just trying to provide some sort of counterpoint to all this leftover knee-jerk Animated hate, since nothing would make me happier than this series magically being a 4th season of Animated.

Though I would be pleased if it caused further problems with Aligned continuity holding together. I loves me some meta-chaos, especially when it makes up for the lower level of firefights this will surely have relative to Prime. Just the sad trend of western action cartoons being ever more neutered lately, not a complaint about this or any other single 'toon, regardless of how it turns out.

One way this series could mitigate that problem is by introducing gestalts, maybe making a quest to find members of a lost Autobot combiner team the first story arc, as that would be a logical way to work in the increased number of characters we were promised. Huge robots knocking over buildings in super-powered melee combat would probably be deemed more acceptable than excessive shootings today, and mesh with all the Dinobot and Godzilla carnage kids will have fresh in their minds after this summer. And since there was no significant combining in the Prime cartoon, that could be a major new factor that wouldn't contradict much of anything. Just my best guess.

As for the picture at issue here, am I the only one who thinks Bee's head ended up looking like Impactor's? If he is just leading a smaller group of Autobots, could they be the new Wreckers, for the simple reason that the name gets a reaction from older fans?

by **hinomars19** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:02 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
hinomars19 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
Balgus82 wrote:Doesn anyone else really hate the way those feet look? They're completely flat and don't gel with the way the rest of the body looks. Looks like someone rolled over his feet with a bulldozer.
They don't look flat to me. You can see a shadow/shading on them to show the depth and dimension of them angling diagonally upward towards the ankles.

I'm sorry, what?

There is zero depth and dimension in those legs/ feet. The lower half of the image almost looks like it has been warped. They are as flat as hell. I'm sorry but seeing a bit of 'shading' and using your imagination to fill the gap between actual art critique and a skewed vision to stay on the good side of an image is appalling.

Look at this image with an un-biased eye please-those legs are flat. You can like the image all you want, but those legs are badly drawn and show zero perspective or depth.
*whispering* Pssst, hey. I just wanted to let you know that that picture is a two-dimensional painting presented on a flat surface. Just like this one is. Good? Good.

Daww, smart-assery, how quaint.
Bad artwork may be your thing, but it isn't mine. I do take these things seriously, it's my job to. If I gave this to a customer they'd ask for their money back, or I'd fix whatever problems I had made.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:24 pm

hinomars19 wrote:Bad artwork may be your thing, but it isn't mine. I do take these things seriously, it's my job to. If I gave this to a customer they'd ask for their money back, or I'd fix whatever problems I had made.

I can see where this pic would be off-putting for some, but it's probably like how some doesn't look that good as stilled imagery and may look a lot better when animated in motion.

News Credits: 1 · by **Darkangelstear** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:50 pm

I give it one season. I have nothing positive to say about this so Im going to just leave it at, "I don't like the idea."
Would it be to much to ask for some thing fresh and exciting.
Or finish Season 4 finally from G1!
Ive been wanting another show done G1 style for a while, but with up dated designs.
Well, who knows, it might not be that bad. :-?

News Credits: 2 · by **Hero Alpha** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Looks pretty good to me. I like Animated and Prime, and Rescue Bots isn't bad. As for the new added "comedy", if its anything like MTMTE I will be very pleased. Bee as leader didn't work out great in RID maybe Starscream will take over as the head guy lol. I just want it to still be robots at war.

by **Nemesis Maximo** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:56 pm

3D characters on painted environments? Because Energon was so spectacular.

Now granted, that was like, ten years ago. Animation techniques and fiction have both improved exponentially since those days.

Although, I was hoping for something fully hand-drawn. But I'm sure this will be decent.

News Credits: 62 · by **#Sideways#** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:56 pm

New Transformers Series! :KREMZEEK:

... And then I heard "adventure and fun for children" with taking draws from Rescue Bots.

My gosh, I am sickened. I was hoping for a new Prime. That series was awesome, and then they try to make all series' for little kids. Sure, more adult fans have the movies, but this can't go over well as a follow-up to the awesomefest that was Prime.