The Energon Pub

News Credits: 22 · by **Rodimus Prime** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:31 pm

Ever since the 1st film came out in 2007, I remember Michael Bay saying how proud he was of the much-detailed transformations of each TF character in the movies. He said he wanted the transformation to be as realistic as possible, where every small part of every TF had a place to go in each mode and a specific movement each time that character transformed. No sub-space disappearances, and no unexplained parts on the bodies.

My question is, considering the amount of CG that went into this effort, do you think it was worth it? It looked amazing each time, for sure, but could the CG time and room have been used for perhaps more screen time for each character?

News Credits: 7 · by **TulioDude** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:07 pm

I believe it was worth it.The characters not only had to transform,look good and impressive,but had to have full range of motion.So I believe they accomplished what they needed.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:12 am

I think it's possible to achieve 'realism' on a simpler design for sure. The way things look in the movies is great, in my opinion, but it's an esthtic- not THE esthetic. A different approach could be used. If there ever is going to be a reboot, that would be a nice chance to show that.

by **Evil_the_Nub** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:30 pm

TulioDude wrote:I believe it was worth it.The characters not only had to transform,look good and impressive,but had to have full range of motion.So I believe they accomplished what they needed.

I agree. I don't think a simpler design would have worked at all. There's no way to go from a fully functional vehicle, to a robot with full mobility using a simpler design. If they were made out of big solid chunks they would have to make several obvious cheats in the transformation. Plus that would severely limit their ability to move.

News Credits: 2 · by **Insurgent** » Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:07 am

I think a simpler design could have worked, if they did something like Alternators. Make them like those designs, but you would still need to add small detail parts like pistons and joints to their limbs and points of articulation. Just look at that life size transforming car based on the Alternators Subaru made years ago.

Saying that, I have absolutly no problem with the way the movies designs transform. They look awesome. Except the KSI drones. They look dumb.

News Credits: 7 · by **Noideaforaname** » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:30 am

The crazy, complex transformations were half of the appeal with these films. Never change them!
If anything, though, maybe a more Iron Man-esque approach? Millions of parts exposed when it's all rearranging itself, which all then folds up in a way that leaves a clean robot form. After all, that's basically what happens when they turn into vehicles.

by **chivesbot20** » Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:03 pm

I think that the transformations add a lot to the films. I find that as the series went on the transformations got a less and less detailed espicelly the autobots and divots in AOE. But it adds even to character trait a bit with jazz. And for sideswipe his transformation makes me think of the name as an action. I think my opinion is clear that it is positive.

by **Prime Riblet** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:08 am

I actually prefer the detailed transformation. I will sound like a fool for saying this, but that was one of the main things I wanted out of the first movie. I simply wanted to see my toys come to life on the big screen.