The Energon Pub

That acutally is much better and more "realistic" looking that what we got in the movie. Its simple and sleek, it looks like what I would expect an advanced alien robot to look like. Why would it want to have thousands of moving parts...very unefficient. Also it looks like it actually turns into a plane, I dont see where there could be much mass shifting. Unlike the movie with its thousands of moving parts that mask the actual mass shifting thats going on.

Pretty good for an early draft. Too bad it got canned.

Autobot032 wrote:The movie designs actually move, emote, etc...can't accomplish that with G1-esque designs.

An entirely humanoid design can't emote as well as an insectoid pile of blades can ? How the hell does this kind of reasoning work ?

Starscreams bad comedy wrote:That acutally is much better and more "realistic" looking that what we got in the movie. Its simple and sleek, it looks like what I would expect an advanced alien robot to look like. Why would it want to have thousands of moving parts...very unefficient. Also it looks like it actually turns into a plane, I dont see where there could be much mass shifting. Unlike the movie with its thousands of moving parts that mask the actual mass shifting thats going on.

Pretty good for an early draft. Too bad it got canned.

Human beings have how many billions of moving parts?? The fewer the moving parts, the simpler the species.

On the contrary, a highly advanced race of machines would have exceptionally complex designs and operating systems.

Starscreams bad comedy wrote:That acutally is much better and more "realistic" looking that what we got in the movie. Its simple and sleek, it looks like what I would expect an advanced alien robot to look like. Why would it want to have thousands of moving parts...very unefficient. Also it looks like it actually turns into a plane, I dont see where there could be much mass shifting. Unlike the movie with its thousands of moving parts that mask the actual mass shifting thats going on.

Pretty good for an early draft. Too bad it got canned.

It looks like a cheap robot that a human company would make, not very alien, but something very basic and not pleasing to look at. The comic versions of autobots look more realistic then these renders,in my opinion.

Mass shifting is-- Soundwave bot to casette. These bots changet the form of their bodies, nothing is getting HUGE that was originally tiny.

But I guess with your logic, a robotic hand with 5 pieces it is more efficient and functional then a robotic hand with 500 pieces in it.

I guess our feet are really efficient, and our hands are not.

Cool.

too stiff looking but i do like how his idea for megatron might look in earth form if he would to come back in the sequel.

http://www.benprocter.com/SITEv2/HTML/ZOOM_Trans/ZOOM_95.html

briggs wrote:

Starscreams bad comedy wrote:That acutally is much better and more "realistic" looking that what we got in the movie. Its simple and sleek, it looks like what I would expect an advanced alien robot to look like. Why would it want to have thousands of moving parts...very unefficient. Also it looks like it actually turns into a plane, I dont see where there could be much mass shifting. Unlike the movie with its thousands of moving parts that mask the actual mass shifting thats going on.

Pretty good for an early draft. Too bad it got canned.

It looks like a cheap robot that a human company would make, not very alien, but something very basic and not pleasing to look at. The comic versions of autobots look more realistic then these renders,in my opinion.

Mass shifting is-- Soundwave bot to casette. These bots changet the form of their bodies, nothing is getting HUGE that was originally tiny.

But I guess with your logic, a robotic hand with 5 pieces it is more efficient and functional then a robotic hand with 500 pieces in it.

I guess our feet are really efficient, and our hands are not.

Cool.

Hehehe, owned.

dragons wrote:too stiff looking but i do like how his idea for megatron might look in earth form if he would to come back in the sequel.

http://www.benprocter.com/SITEv2/HTML/ZOOM_Trans/ZOOM_95.html

Looks liek a cylon I think

I think he looks to cartoony, doesn't look very evil or threatening to me.

I like that design for Starscream. One of the problems I had with the film was making out the robots during the fight scenes. Designs like this would have benn easier on the eyes. That said still loved the film.

Thanatos Prime wrote:Human beings have how many billions of moving parts?? The fewer the moving parts, the simpler the species.

On the contrary, a highly advanced race of machines would have exceptionally complex designs and operating systems.

Where did you pull that gem of wisdom from ?

Here we have two lifeforms. One of these appears to have more moving parts, the other is more advanced. Can you guess which is which ?





And while we're at it, the same for machines.

Creature SH wrote:

Thanatos Prime wrote:Human beings have how many billions of moving parts?? The fewer the moving parts, the simpler the species.

On the contrary, a highly advanced race of machines would have exceptionally complex designs and operating systems.

Where did you pull that gem of wisdom from ?

Here we have two lifeforms. One of these appears to have more moving parts, the other is more advanced. Can you guess which is which ?

Hmmm...misunderstood yet again....

That arthropod does infact contain significantly fewer moving parts than we do. You're merely counting appendages and body segments. However, if you were to count the number of "moving" parts ex: blood cells, organelles, nerve connections; you would find that we are far more complex than any arthropod.

In general the more advanced a being is, the more moving parts (complexity) it has.

This is about designs, though.

Visible moving parts.

Once a technology becomes more advanced, the parts are almost always covered with a casing. Because a casing protects said parts and more advanced means smaller parts that fit into said casing.

Thanatos Prime wrote:Hmmm...misunderstood yet again....

That arthropod does infact contain significantly fewer moving parts than we do. You're merely counting appendages and body segments. However, if you were to count the number of "moving" parts ex: blood cells, organelles, nerve connections; you would find that we are far more complex than any arthropod.

In general the more advanced a being is, the more moving parts (complexity) it has.

That, and the baby has more movement muscles on his face than a centipede over its entire body. Heck, every little hair has its own muscle at the base. (hair raising in the neck and all)

Thanatos Prime wrote:
Hmmm...misunderstood yet again....

That arthropod does infact contain significantly fewer moving parts than we do. You're merely counting appendages and body segments. However, if you were to count the number of "moving" parts ex: blood cells, organelles, nerve connections; you would find that we are far more complex than any arthropod.

In general the more advanced a being is, the more moving parts (complexity) it has.

Humans have skin. That protects the moving parts.
My problem in a nustshell is that this prototype showed that designers initially did have the idea to show a certain level of respect to g1 designs, and Bay and that douchebag production lead came in and sunk that idea. not surprising from a guy who has made pretty clear his disdane of G1.
Has he ever seen beastwars?
read any of the books?
taken any influence from anything in the transformers universe besides G1?
beastwars designs were not perfect, but they were way better than these crappods.
(See, it doesn't have to be G1).

At least the prototype, while not perfect, resembled the IDEA of transformers.
The problem is not that the movie designs did not look like G1, but that they did not resemble the transformers CONCEPT to a sufficient degree in my taste.
if you compare beastwars and the movie with each other, in total, beastwars easily has more class than the movie and is NOT and embarasment.

Riotflea, I hate you because you are a genius.

I can see the argument about humans and skin, but think of it this way:

The bones/joints are covered in skin and muscle, can see them move and flex and shift. I you couldn't we'd look like Barbie dolls when we move.

The muscle tissue also flexes. Make a muscle with your bicep and watch it move and shift.

It's the same principle. But metal casings aren't capable of moving and flexing like skin and muscle. Hence things being exposed, some parts that move are visible. If we were made of metal, I would think it would be the same way. It's necessity, considering that metal doesn't move and flex the way skin and muscle do.

Just throwin' that out there.

If you can buy magical shapeshifting nanotech hide altmodes, you could certainly stomach a flexible coating for the face. It's not such a far cry from materials we actually have in earth technology right now.

Eh, that design's alright. If you like robots that can be taken out by a little league baseball team with a couple of Louisville Sluggers.

Human beings have how many billions of moving parts?? The fewer the moving parts, the simpler the species.

On the contrary, a highly advanced race of machines would have exceptionally complex designs and operating systems.

Why are you even comparing humans to a robot? You are also assuming that humans are the "most advanced" spiecies in terms of movement. Last time I checked we cant fly, cant run very fast, dont swim very good, are prety weak for our size, poor vision, poor smell, etc. Bottom line is we have evolved to use our brains instead of our physical atttributes to give us an edge over other spieces. Just because something has les moving parts doesnt mean it cant be advanced or complex.

In the case of a robot, why would it want to expend so much energy on all those moving parts if they are not necessary to function? Seems like an advanced alien robot would want to be as efficient as possible and would ditch all the unneeded moving parts. And just because you only see 5 fingers on the hand doesnt mean it isnt a complex system, hell the human hand has 54 bones in it.

Mass shifting is-- Soundwave bot to casette. These bots changet the form of their bodies, nothing is getting HUGE that was originally tiny.

Frenzy got a lot bigger than that small cd player. And his head was a lot bigger than a cell phone.

But I guess with your logic, a robotic hand with 5 pieces it is more efficient and functional then a robotic hand with 500 pieces in it.

See the above.

I guess our feet are really efficient, and our hands are not.

Cool.

What are you babeling about? Are feet are pretty damn efficient for what they do. Why would want any more parts to a foot.


Have any of you people ever seen and actuall robot that duplicates bipedail motion? Guess what, they dont have thousands of moving parts.

Starscreams bad comedy wrote:

Human beings have how many billions of moving parts?? The fewer the moving parts, the simpler the species.

On the contrary, a highly advanced race of machines would have exceptionally complex designs and operating systems.

Why are you even comparing humans to a robot? You are also assuming that humans are the "most advanced" spiecies in terms of movement. Last time I checked we cant fly, cant run very fast, dont swim very good, are prety weak for our size, poor vision, poor smell, etc. Bottom line is we have evolved to use our brains instead of our physical atttributes to give us an edge over other spieces. Just because something has les moving parts doesnt mean it cant be advanced or complex.

In the case of a robot, why would it want to expend so much energy on all those moving parts if they are not necessary to function? Seems like an advanced alien robot would want to be as efficient as possible and would ditch all the unneeded moving parts. And just because you only see 5 fingers on the hand doesnt mean it isnt a complex system, hell the human hand has 54 bones in it.

Mass shifting is-- Soundwave bot to casette. These bots changet the form of their bodies, nothing is getting HUGE that was originally tiny.

Frenzy got a lot bigger than that small cd player. And his head was a lot bigger than a cell phone.

But I guess with your logic, a robotic hand with 5 pieces it is more efficient and functional then a robotic hand with 500 pieces in it.

See the above.

I guess our feet are really efficient, and our hands are not.

Cool.

What are you babeling about? Are feet are pretty damn efficient for what they do. Why would want any more parts to a foot.


Have any of you people ever seen and actuall robot that duplicates bipedail motion? Guess what, they dont have thousands of moving parts.

Starscream's Bad Comedy: QFT!

ANyone ever think how impossible it would be to have thousands of NON-healing metal parts, grinding against one-another in motion, let alone transformation. Damaging a TF in this case would be MUCH more easy, as opposed to a simpler, more heavily-armored mech-type TF. Now, if they used nano-technology as an explanation of their "self-repair", then that would lend some credibility to their argument. But in terms of mechanical engineering, an engine with fewer parts tends to last longer: fewer parts to wear or break, given all other things are the same (i.e. metals used, service history, etc.)...but hey, this is how a gearhead thinks, and not some director who payts someone to change the oil on his Benz.

So sue me.

Back to the sketch: I love it, it looks great.

Put it in CGI, and it would look even better.

A very good concept sketch that recalls SS, but still gives him an update. Sweetness.

Oh my God I actually laughed out loud at that image. You seriously think that looks better than what we got? Are you literally blind? Dude you have to be joking. You're funnier than Carlos Mencia at the very least.

TheMuffin wrote:Oh my God I actually laughed out loud at that image. You seriously think that looks better than what we got? Are you literally blind? Dude you have to be joking. You're funnier than Carlos Mencia at the very least.

Mencia does rock, but comparing a concept sketch to a final product is one-sided.

The concept design of movie Prime, etc. made me vomit in my mouth a little. But on the big screen, it looked much better.

This design mixed with the others (metal shard Megatron included) would NOT work, but cleaner, simpler, more easily-identifiable designs would have been better.

I guess to me, it is a question of identity.

You see a Gundam, you think, "Hey, that is a Gundam!"

You see the new TFs, and think, "Hey, a giant transfomrming robot thingy...yeah...great."

But this much we agree upon: Mencia rocks!

it's not great but like some have said, it's a billion times better then that movie debacle we got. at least it doesn't look like a freaking metallic starfish. that design just needs a little polishing and it would be a lot better.

TheMuffin wrote:Oh my God I actually laughed out loud at that image. You seriously think that looks better than what we got? Are you literally blind? Dude you have to be joking. You're funnier than Carlos Mencia at the very least.

It is not the best, but it is better than a gorillabot. Also, I like to think of starscream as a scrawny, weasley bastich, not a supercombat reverse joint monkey.
Also I like a recognizable face, not two eyes and a bunghole for a mouth.
Also, a more sleek design would have had good implications for the development of cybertronian society I hope they might think about getting into for the sequels, unless that idea is too G1 for you.
For your sake, I hope the next one is as bad or worse than this one was.

Skowl wrote:Yeah, I actually don't like that design... he looks too much like something out of Artificial Intelligence or I, Robot.

Or *gasp* even Bicentennial Man

HAHA...best crappy movie reference EVER!!!

That design makes Starscream's frame look flimsy.

roy_flagg00 wrote:It is not the best, but it is better than a gorillabot. Also, I like to think of starscream as a scrawny, weasley bastich, not a supercombat reverse joint monkey.
Also I like a recognizable face, not two eyes and a bunghole for a mouth.

This I agree with. While the little bit of character we got with movie Starscream told it was in fact Starscream, the design would have been better for someone else. I always said the movie 'Screamer reminds me of Crumplezone.