The Energon Pub

My God!

That is awesome! That is my new wallpaper!!!!

super-king wrote:My God!

That is awesome! That is my new wallpaper!!!!

Much better thn some default green rolling hill with a lame blue sky.

That's so spiffing.

Can't find it!

Found it.

Michael Bay must die!!!

Windsweeper wrote:Found it.

Michael Bay must die!!!

Or you must realise that this wouldnt have worked in a live action movie thats ment to be REALISTIC. If it was a fully computer animated movie, then yes these old designs would have worked, but otherwise no.

This is a better link (hopefully).

But that is sweet!

That is just mind blowing. I've set it as my wallpaper as well. And I don't mean on my computer. I mean I printed hundreds of copies and pasted them all over the walls of my house.

looks more like a scene from a video game rather then a movie.

So, if we got a G1 video game I'd kill for it to look that awesome.

It's nothing short of fantastic, but it wouldn't translate into live action correctly. It just wouldn't.

If we see Devastator on the big screen, he will definitely have a much different look than we're used to.

Amazing work. They should have had this guy design the models for the movie....

Forget the movie. This guy should be the lead model designer for future Transformers video games. I would buy the games just for the cut scenes alone.

Would love to see this guy involved if they did a CGI movie like the new Ninja Turtles movie. Well, this guy and the team behind the cut scenes from the armada PS2 game.

Supreme Convoy wrote::BOT: This is a better link (hopefully).

But that is sweet!

Thanks, I couldn't seem to find it.

wow, and he didn't go overboard on the lime green, it could almost use a little more.. so freakin' sweet

Sonray wrote:It does look realistic, but as realistic and fantastic as it looks it still wouldnt work in a live action movie.

The G1 designs are just so old fashioned now, and these guys are supposed to be highly advanced robots. If people saw these characters looking like this they wouldnt be able to beleive that they are super-advanced alien robots when they look like blocky, dirty, spot-weilded together, imperfect almost human made looking robots.

This old style should just be left alone where it belongs respectfully and loved for what it is and when it was.

*sigh*
Or, you know, having crashed on here millions of years ago could have left them something less than the brilliant alien technology they WERE, requiring human ingenuity to get them decently functional.

But if one did THAT, then the G1 story couldn't be THOROUGHLY pissed on.

--B-- wrote:

Supreme Convoy wrote::BOT: This is a better link (hopefully).

But that is sweet!

Thanks, I couldn't seem to find it.

Double thanks. I couldn't find it either. I must of had a brain fart

Riotflea wrote:

Sonray wrote:It does look realistic, but as realistic and fantastic as it looks it still wouldnt work in a live action movie.

The G1 designs are just so old fashioned now, and these guys are supposed to be highly advanced robots. If people saw these characters looking like this they wouldnt be able to beleive that they are super-advanced alien robots when they look like blocky, dirty, spot-weilded together, imperfect almost human made looking robots.

This old style should just be left alone where it belongs respectfully and loved for what it is and when it was.

*sigh*
Or, you know, having crashed on here millions of years ago could have left them something less than the brilliant alien technology they WERE, requiring human ingenuity to get them decently functional.

But if one did THAT, then the G1 story couldn't be THOROUGHLY pissed on.

This doesnt have anything to do with the freaking story! Im talking about how things LOOK on the big screen in a live action movie. These designs simply WOULDNT HAVE WORKED in such a medium.

Sonray wrote:

Riotflea wrote:

Sonray wrote:It does look realistic, but as realistic and fantastic as it looks it still wouldnt work in a live action movie.

The G1 designs are just so old fashioned now, and these guys are supposed to be highly advanced robots. If people saw these characters looking like this they wouldnt be able to beleive that they are super-advanced alien robots when they look like blocky, dirty, spot-weilded together, imperfect almost human made looking robots.

This old style should just be left alone where it belongs respectfully and loved for what it is and when it was.

*sigh*
Or, you know, having crashed on here millions of years ago could have left them something less than the brilliant alien technology they WERE, requiring human ingenuity to get them decently functional.

But if one did THAT, then the G1 story couldn't be THOROUGHLY pissed on.

This doesnt have anything to do with the freaking story! Im talking about how things LOOK on the big screen in a live action movie. These designs simply WOULDNT HAVE WORKED in such a medium.

Just because you believe that doesn't make it truth. Riotflea is stating another possibility that COULD have been taken with the live-action film rather than the path that has been taken. He is stating his opinion just as you are stating yours and, hence, there is no reason for you to get upset.

Predaprince wrote:

Sonray wrote:

Riotflea wrote:

Sonray wrote:It does look realistic, but as realistic and fantastic as it looks it still wouldnt work in a live action movie.

The G1 designs are just so old fashioned now, and these guys are supposed to be highly advanced robots. If people saw these characters looking like this they wouldnt be able to beleive that they are super-advanced alien robots when they look like blocky, dirty, spot-weilded together, imperfect almost human made looking robots.

This old style should just be left alone where it belongs respectfully and loved for what it is and when it was.

*sigh*
Or, you know, having crashed on here millions of years ago could have left them something less than the brilliant alien technology they WERE, requiring human ingenuity to get them decently functional.

But if one did THAT, then the G1 story couldn't be THOROUGHLY pissed on.

This doesnt have anything to do with the freaking story! Im talking about how things LOOK on the big screen in a live action movie. These designs simply WOULDNT HAVE WORKED in such a medium.

Just because you believe that doesn't make it truth. Riotflea is stating another possibility that COULD have been taken with the live-action film rather than the path that has been taken. He is stating his opinion just as you are stating yours and, hence, there is no reason for you to get upset.

Theres reason to get upset because no one listens, and after the 100th repetetive post trying to explain the matter one gets frustrated. Hence why i bolded and underlined certain words in my last comment.

Again,

Just because you believe that doesn't make it truth.

Riotflea is stating another possibility that COULD have been taken with the live-action film rather than the path that has been taken. He is stating his opinion just as you are stating yours and, hence, there is no reason for you to get upset.

I am listening, but you seem to think that anyone who has a different opinion than your own is trying to usurp your opinions/beliefs. Time to realize that this forum is a medium for all members to voice their opinions.

Predaprince wrote:Again,

Just because you believe that doesn't make it truth.

Riotflea is stating another possibility that COULD have been taken with the live-action film rather than the path that has been taken. He is stating his opinion just as you are stating yours and, hence, there is no reason for you to get upset.

I am listening, but you seem to think that anyone who has a different opinion than your own is trying to usurp your opinions/beliefs. Time to realize that this forum is a medium for all members to voice their opinions.

Ok dont turn this around to make it all about me ok. Many people have already stated that these designs wouldnt have worked in a live action scenario so if you are going to start argueing with people about it, dont just single me out!

One fact that nobody can dispute is that the designs dont look this way (thank goodness) and you have what youve got. So theres no point in argueing about it as they wont ever be changed to look like G1 now so your gonna have to learn to live with it.

And like i said if you wish to continue argueing about it, target some of the other people on this thread who have stated their "opinion" about these designs not working.

Hell, its not even opinion most of the time, its common sense mostly and general knowledge of how the film industry works. Its 2007, the FACT is a general movie going audience (which is who the movie is targeted at to make money) wouldnt have accepted G1 designs in a live action movie with a "serious" storyline that is aimed at realism.

And i dont care what anyone says about that, because that is the truth and not just an opinion. I know alot and too much about films and the industry and what a general audience want/can beleive in on screen to just be told to shut up and accept the possibility that these old designs "could" have worked in a live action movie.

They would have been perfectly acceptable in a TMNT style cg animated feature, but not in live action especially if the film makers are going for a realistic approach.

Thats all im saying on the matter.

Sonray wrote:I know alot and too much about films and the industry and what a general audience want/can beleive in on screen to just be told to shut up and accept the possibility that these old designs "could" have worked in a live action movie.

They would have been perfectly acceptable in a TMNT style cg animated feature, but not in live action especially if the film makers are going for a realistic approach.

Thats all im saying on the matter.

I am definitely loud that I believe these new designs are "CGI shard-bots", but I never believed it would be sane or credible to reuse the blocky, oldschool stuff.

I mean, we're seeing feast or famine here.
G1 - Way too blocky.
Michael Bay - Uneccessarily CGI and shardy.

The way to have gone was a hybrid, with far more attention to moving joints being realistic instead of just one block hanging off another block by a small pin.
But the collapsible shards way is wrong too, with it's own problems.

I do believe that had they gone to talented fans for inspiration on hybridized designs, things could have kicked much ass.

I don't feel even a hint of intellectual dishonesty in saying they really just decided to do things their own way, source content be damned. (Well, as far as public fan opinion would allow them to anyway).

EDIT: As far as the toys go, the "muscley" hybrid joints I pictured in my head could have been translated in toy form.
Like, you'd pull out, say, Blaster's arm from his body, but a sheath of "muscley'lookin' wire guts would slide out over top the ball joints... to make it look less fake between limb and body.

(I know what I mean... was that too abstract?)

Riotflea wrote:

Sonray wrote:I know alot and too much about films and the industry and what a general audience want/can beleive in on screen to just be told to shut up and accept the possibility that these old designs "could" have worked in a live action movie.

They would have been perfectly acceptable in a TMNT style cg animated feature, but not in live action especially if the film makers are going for a realistic approach.

Thats all im saying on the matter.

I am definitely loud that I believe these new designs are "CGI shard-bots", but I never believed it would be sane or credible to reuse the blocky, oldschool stuff.

I mean, we're seeing feast or famine here.
G1 - Way too blocky.
Michael Bay - Uneccessarily CGI and shardy.

The way to have gone was a hybrid, with far more attention to moving joints being realistic instead of just one block hanging off another block by a small pin.
But the collapsible shards way is wrong too, with it's own problems.

I do believe that had they gone to talented fans for inspiration on hybridized designs, things could have kicked much ass.

I don't feel even a hint of intellectual dishonesty in saying they really just decided to do things their own way, source content be damned. (Well, as far as public fan opinion would allow them to anyway).

EDIT: As far as the toys go, the "muscley" hybrid joints I pictured in my head could have been translated in toy form.
Like, you'd pull out, say, Blaster's arm from his body, but a sheath of "muscley'lookin' wire guts would slide out over top the ball joints... to make it look less fake between limb and body.

(I know what I mean... was that too abstract?)

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.

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.