The Energon Pub

Darth Bombshell wrote:

hinomars19 wrote:Must be pretty crowded behind that 'fanboy' sheild of yours. What with bay himself, plus some of his followers and production companies with the consolation box out hiding behind there, you must have a regular old party.
how many weak personalities and bruised egos does it take to keep pretentious souls warm at night?

I find that to be absolutely 100% unnecessary, and not just because it happened to be directed at me.

And I find this kind of comment 100% unnecessary, directed at anybody.

your own words
"My guess is that the more adult fans would cry murder because...well, that's what fanboys do, to be perfectly honest. But I would guess that the younger fans, and those who are more generous, would like it."

If someone doesn't like something, they simply don't like it-These nonsense stereotypes have to stop.

rictheron wrote: Yes, in fact you prove my point. First, to use the toy franchise is an unfair basis for analysis as it is restricted by the constraints of real world construction methods and cost analysis. They either, many times, can not be made accurate to a representation because materials can not work that well in that scale detail, or not made that way because of cost. Most toys are disproportionate because of these limits.

Okay, I take your point with regards to the real-world vehicles. I mean, toy engineering wasn't that great at the time - Hasbro/Takara/whoever had to make a robot that could fold up into a recognisable real world car/jet/cassette, so it's okay that the robot modes weren't completely great.

But that's no excuse when it comes to Transformers who turned into futuristic or invented vehicles, because there are no constraints. For example, there is no real reason why, say, Afterburner's toy had no feet. Which kinda makes you wonder... perhaps the whole out-of-proportion thing was deliberate on the part of the designers.

rictheron wrote:Instead my analysis is based on what I shall term 'ideal media'. These are comics, drawings, movies, and TV, the areas where the appearence of a character at all times can be represented in the ideal form of the artist without any real world restrictions.

I'm undecided as to whether the 'ideal' versions of the G1 characters were a deliberate attempt at humanisation, or a method of corner-cutting by the 80s animators and comic artists who, although talented, had to produce their work to terrible deadlines (the UK comics were being churned out on a weekly basis at the peak of G1's popularity, and the animation glitches in the Sunbow cartoon are legendary). After all, it's a lot easier to draw a boxy, cartoony Ratchet than the complicated tank-tread thing the toy turned into.

At the end of the day, it's all about honest opinion - either you like the style of artwork on the new comics or you don't... there's no intrinsic right or wrong answer. It's just that whenever people criticise the comics (or indeed Michael Bay) for making the Transformers look a bit less human than the G1 versions - all they need to do is go back to original toys such as Cindersaur or Huffer to see that - when you think about it - G1 could be just as alien as anything that came after it.

So the big news feed about this on the main page contains a panel from TF #1 with the headline "Bad Artwork".

...really guys? I mean, I don't find the style all that appropriate either, but c'mon, you're an award-winning TF news site. You're better than this.

WhiteRabbit wrote:So the big news feed about this on the main page contains a panel from TF #1 with the headline "Bad Artwork".

...really guys? I mean, I don't find the style all that appropriate either, but c'mon, you're an award-winning TF news site. You're better than this.

I'm wondering if there should be a question mark after the headline, as the blurb seems to be less about the artwork itself and more about IDW responding to the fan reaction (as in, most people seem to be saying it's "bad artwork").

Not a fan of the art. It's a step up from the movies in that I can actually tell who these guys are, but man I hate these faces. It makes sense that their heads would be a thoroughly integrated in an alt-mode as the rest them, but it comes off looking overly complex and ugly. Admittingly not reading the movie comics, I hope it doesn't make expression all the harder to convey.

There are 3 pages on this little preview but I bet there wont be more than 10 posts altogether when the issue is actually released.

Savage wrote:In response to people who say they dislike "the movie style being applied to G1 comics" :

This is NOT a G1 comic. G1 ended in 1990 something. Let it go. If this was a G1 book, Spike Witwicky wouldn't be hunting/killing Autobots, it goes against every fiber of his G1 character. You *might* be able to make a case for this as a classic-oriented TF comic (also not to be confused with Classics toyline).

This argument doesn't hold water at all. This is supposedly the same continuity that has been present in the IDW books since they've started. It was a G1-based continuity. The 'bots looked like their G1 selves, though updated in some case. They had the same names, they were quite recognizably based on the G1 characterizations. If it wasn't supposed to be G1-based, it was certainly an amazing simulation. Saying it's not G1-based because of Spike is silly, especially since there were different incarnations of G1 to begin with, and Spike and Sparkplug were different in them as well.

Personally, I think the story could turn out ok, even though Ironhide being killed by human weapons that seemingly easy does not inspire confidence. I can even appreciate the new designs for the Transformers, except for the faces. I'm sorry, imo they look like crap. I can't enjoy the rest of the artwork, or the story, because of my utter loathing for the faces. So I'll be passing on this. Hopefully, this look for the faces won't stick around long.

I believe what plasma is trying to say is because transformers evolve in how they look through out the years and series we too should evolve and accept it as how do the characters do in their appearance. Personally I would like to read this series as it is something that does interest me how ever the art work does leave something to be said as well. Only time will tell on how this series will be told and hopefully it will be told well and not have to heavily rely on the art work to get it's message across.

DKG wrote:I believe what plasma is trying to say is because transformers evolve in how they look through out the years and series we too should evolve and accept it as how do the characters do in their appearance.

Erm, do you know what evolution means? Evolution is a slow and gradual change in a certain direction. So the 'evolution' analogy would only work if Transformers started out simplistic and got more and more complex as time went on.

But that's not what happened - the original toys looked alien, then the cartoons came along with their more streamlined forms, then the toys followed suit with Action Masters and suchlike, then they went to organic animals and then back to vehicles again. We had the complex Bayformers followed by the simpler TF:Animated designs, and now back to complex here.

That's not evolution, that's just random change.

That said, the main reason the Transformers franchise has succeeded for over 25 years is BECAUSE it has the abiility to relaunch itself every now again, to keep the line fresh and interesting. Sometimes these changes don't really work in the eyes of many (Action Masters, Beast Machines, Animorphs), but sometimes they do work, and catch the imagination of fans.

It remains to be seen whether these new designs will gain as much fan-acceptance as, say, Beast Wars or RID. As this thread has proved, some will like the new designs, others won't.

And that's down to personal taste, not a 'lack of ability to evolve' in those who dislike the new art.

I like this design, and its good mix between the movie style (which is, I admit, different but unique in its own way) and the classic G1 look. Am I the only one here who think this design would possibly work in live-action?

http://www.lilformers.com/index.php/2009/11/09/lil-formers-171-g1-nouveau/

That's all I have to say.

WhiteRabbit wrote:So the big news feed about this on the main page contains a panel from TF #1 with the headline "Bad Artwork".

...really guys? I mean, I don't find the style all that appropriate either, but c'mon, you're an award-winning TF news site. You're better than this.

::putting away the flaming sword as I say this because I'm not defending the site or the news with this reply, just a little free-lance quid pro quo::

Couldn't/shouldn't the same thing be said about IDW?

They're carrying the torch for TF comics while juggling continuity issues in their own stories, outright factual errors in their own stories, and dramatic shifts in artwork that, all things considered the target G1 audience for those books probably (speaking for a group here who didn't ask me to) did not want.

I've supported IDW with my wallet from the beginning. I bought into the stories from issue zero (four copies) despite feeling incredibly burned by Dreamwave. IDW has changed direction two times now in order to draw in new readers. What about the people who have been buying books? The number and kind of comments starting with AHM and going forward now through Continuum...

sigh... You know, and more importantly I know, this all falls on deaf ears.

We, well, not we, I don't complain just to do it. I complain when I really feel something is falling through. When that doesn't work, all that's left for me to do is stop buying. It's the punch you never see coming. I wish IDW good luck with bringing new readers up to speed. Print one extra book for whomever needs to take my spot.

Counterpunch wrote:I wish IDW good luck with bringing new readers up to speed.

Now this is my major gripe, ahead of any complaints I have about the artwork.

A new, ongoing comic with a brand new art style and a cover boldly-proclaiming "Issue 1". THIS was the chance to start afresh, take new readers along for the ride, and start a whole new Transformers continuity from the ground up, as was done in the Bay films and the recent Animated show.

But the whole thing's a missed opportunity. It continues from where other issues left off. It will make references to past adventures, which many new buyers will not know about.

When this was first announced, I seriously considered collecting this book, assuming it was going to be the start of a new story, building a new Transformers universe from scratch, as the "Issue 1" on the cover implies.

But I haven't read all the other IDW stuff. I know they've been collected in graphic novels, but the point is I shouldn't have to buy a load of novels in order to understand what's going on in Issue 1.

When I buy 2000AD issue 1645, I now full well I'm coming in late to the party. If I buy Spider Man issue 412, I know I'll have to catch up.

But this issue 1 is different, it carries on from what's gone before. It's burdened by the weight of old baggage, old continuity. I mean, Ironhide's death will be meaningless to me (and to most other newbies), because we don't know IDW's version of the character - we can't get that emotional attachment that long-term readers will have for the guy. For the newbies, it's emotionally empty.

starfish wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:I wish IDW good luck with bringing new readers up to speed.

Now this is my major gripe, ahead of any complaints I have about the artwork.

A new, ongoing comic with a brand new art style and a cover boldly-proclaiming "Issue 1". THIS was the chance to start afresh, take new readers along for the ride, and start a whole new Transformers continuity from the ground up, as was done in the Bay films and the recent Animated show.

But the whole thing's a missed opportunity. It continues from where other issues left off. It will make references to past adventures, which many new buyers will not know about.

When this was first announced, I seriously considered collecting this book, assuming it was going to be the start of a new story, building a new Transformers universe from scratch, as the "Issue 1" on the cover implies.

But I haven't read all the other IDW stuff. I know they've been collected in graphic novels, but the point is I shouldn't have to buy a load of novels in order to understand what's going on in Issue 1.

When I buy 2000AD issue 1645, I now full well I'm coming in late to the party. If I buy Spider Man issue 412, I know I'll have to catch up.

But this issue 1 is different, it carries on from what's gone before. It's burdened by the weight of old baggage, old continuity. I mean, Ironhide's death will be meaningless to me (and to most other newbies), because we don't know IDW's version of the character - we can't get that emotional attachment that long-term readers will have for the guy. For the newbies, it's emotionally empty.

That is why IDW is coming out with Transformers Continuum.

There is no need to reboot the entire series. There are enough good storylines and themes built up that AHM didnt completely destroy to keep the continuity going.

[quote="MYoung23]

That is why IDW is coming out with Transformers Continuum.

There is no need to reboot the entire series. There are enough good storylines and themes built up that AHM didnt completely destroy to keep the continuity going.[/quote]

I agree - from what little I know of the IDW universe, there are plenty more tales to tell in that particular world.

But it's a bit disingenuous to put them in a comic which screams "Look! First Issue of New Ongoing Comic Saga!", because the implication from the 'issue 1' tag is that it's a first chapter of a new story.

I can see why IDW have done it - Issue 1 is always the biggest selling issue of any comic book series. Floating readers will pick up a first issue to see if they like it, and maybe check out issue 2 if they do. It's a great marketing gimmick. In a way it's similar to a pilot episode of a TV show - the first episode is almost always the most highly-rated.

But what troubles me is, although packaged as a 'pilot episode', that's most certainly what this comic isn't. Nobody needed to have seen "Carnage in C-Minor" to appreaciate the Michael Bay movie, and that's one of the reasons for its suceess - the Bay movie catered for both new and established audiences.

The fact that IDW are basically forced to print a "story so far" issue merely illustrates my point.

Which begs the question: why could they not continue their story arcs in further mini-series, and use the new comic as a forum to snag new readers with a fresh take on the franchise?

The faces are a mess, the rest I can live with.

[quote] done from one human cannons shot? Where was this cannon during AHM/quote]

are you paying attention 2 years later