The Energon Pub

by **Lord_Megatron** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:41 am

I was wondering if anyone else has looked at the new designs enough now where it is making the old G1 designs look really crappy. It just hit me the other day that I dont think I would like to ever see any less detail in their design scheme. The intricate technolgical look and feel of these new Transformers I think has really raised a new standard for Transformers. I am new to this forum but have been a fan since the first G1 episode aired years ago. I have listened to the criticism of the first exposure to the new movie designs and I was behind the argument that they were too radically different. Months went by and I kept seeing the images more and more and then new pics were leaked and then I saw them in action in the trailers and I must say I have been blown away and I think the creative team behind the new designs have really outdone themselves. Does anyone still wish they looked like the cartoon?

News Credits: 21 · by **dragons** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:56 am

welcome to teh froum i agree with you with the new designs some could have some modifications to teh somemore but id od like how they turning out so far.

by **Lord_Megatron** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:12 am

Imagine when we get to see the sequels what they will do with designs of other Transformers like the rumored Devastator or Dinobots addition. And if they goes far as to include Unicron or Primus then we might see some of the craziest designs ever concieved. I think I love the Transformers more now as an adult then I did when I was a kid. I cant wait for this movie! I didnt look forward to Episode One of Star Wars as much as i have this movie. The only bad thing is how paiinfully long it will be before we get a sequel. The wait for this movie has been hard enough.

News Credits: 1 · by **Asderiphel** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:17 am

I went through the same process with the designs: skeptic at first, slowly warmed to them, and now appreciative of them. I didn't get 100% sold till I held the movie Ratchet in my hand. The level of innovation, in the detail, and how the parts that have mainly been used as kibble are now functional parts of the design, have really impressed me. Every movie toy I've purchased has reinforced that.

Seeing the movie toys sitting next to the other lines on the shelf is a shock. Comparing them side by side, I began to realize that the old G1 style really was not going to work for a live-action movie. Bay & Co, from a visual standpoint, know what they are talking about, and have really done an outstanding job of pushing the envelope for detail. Now, I still don't like some of the faces that much, but they're growing on me every day.

Oh, and welcome to the boards. I'm supposed to say Seibertron contains nuts.
(nobody ever told me that, so I don't feel very 'official' making that claim, but if someone else wants to tell him...)

by **Riotflea** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:48 am

I could rewrite everything I just typed in THIS topic:
http://seibertron.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6685&start=45&sid=
...but my fingers are already curling.

Pasting:

Zombie Starscream wrote: Thats what I've been trying to say for a long time! Just because its G1 (or any other Tf toon) doesn't mean it has to be all blocky. It can be a hybrid of sorts where it can look alien roboty but not look like a bunch of blocks stacked onto each other. I doubt if we ever met the Tfs in real life, that they would be as blocky as they are in the cartoon.

THANK YOU. You know how hard it's been getting anyone to understand what we're saying?
I'm sick of movie apologists going, "WOULDN'T WORK! WOULDN'T WORK!"
Of course it wouldn't! The transformations of the toys are primarily preposterous!

And what Bay's done, both for the movie AND the movie toys is also not the answer.

PERFECT EXAMPLE:

Because these guys are made of "shards" in the movie, "shards" have to be crapped onto the toys, either in sculpt or like here... extra pieces screwed/glued on.
Just look at his chest... how silly is that ****?

Honestly, do they NOT look like spare parts from out of an "Operation" game?
Movie Megatron: a bunch of forks magnetized together.
Toy Megatron: Operation pieces screwed/glued together.

While real-life G1 Transformers are preposterous in real life, the CGI shard-bots are preposterous as toys, and no doubt raises the cost. (And if you think about it, these movie toys ARE having some problems in the quality department, are they not? Cost-cutting of some sort?)

Ok, now let's look at the topic at hand... Devastator.
Could the G1 version work in real life?
HELL-freakin'-no!

Would a CGI shard bot work here?
HELL-freakin'-no!
The constructicons, more than other vehicles, are constructed of heavy-ass beams for a reason.

So then... what?

Constructions that are jointed similar to the innovatively ball-jointed Beast Wars figures. BUT... there also has to be unchangeable "hard points" on some of their individual structures, even more so because they make up limbs to a heavier robot.

If Bay's designs were at work here, the bucket to the earth mover would split into many individual rods.

Devastator himself, because the smaller units would be comprised of freaking CGI shards would have to twist all the hell together in order to maintain stability at that weight and mass.

So... Devastator... if going by these "new" and "realistic" Bay way of doing things...
...would look like a giant Botanica from Beast Machines.

But a hybrid of G1, blockiness but with the emulation of muscley-ness at the joints?
Yes. Yes, THEN you can have Devastator, be it real life with inorganic alien mech-muscles or as a toy, where you'd merely need to somehow sheath things to look like the live action depiction.

...and you wouldn't even have to do THAT, for toys really only can be so close to a source material where jointage is concerned.

I get no happy feelings with these new toys, save for the G1-painted version of Jazz.

Show me a gestalt in the movie.
Then show me the toy for it.

THEN we can talk.

And that's only if neither looks like the things in this movie.