The Energon Pub

That Wheelie picture is hilarious, though.

Bottom Out wrote:and a lot more people know transformers by just the cartoon...the ratio of transformer comic fans to transformer cartoon fans is not 1:1.

Sorry, but that's as baseless as my saying that more know the comic.
The show is well known, especially in America, but it's not like that on a global level.

On top of that, the show was cancelled after 3 seasons. The more "well known" version you talk of died like many shows.
It was the G1 comic, which lasted for 8 years that kept the line going, and it was this that laid the foundation for much of the future of the franchise.

G2 was a continuation of the comic, Beast Wars, features the Vok, who one of the creators intended to be an evolution of the swarm, a comic only device, as well as other things, A/E/C saw the god version of Unicron return and Cybertron being Primus.

Again, the depth and richness of the comic, not the stuff from the show.

The show is iconic, especially in terms of visuals and voices, but whether you knew it or not, a huge chunk of what has kept the franchise going since 1988 has been the comic itself or has been taken from the comic and put into new lines.

Bottom Out wrote:the robots still maintain there personalities from the original, they still come from cybertron, the only difference is the "all spark" really...WOW...i guess it isnt transformers now :rolleyes:

Once again, there is more to a character than superficial likenesses.

Bottom Out wrote:and x-men is proof new designs also work..funny thing is that you mention spiderman..but the goblin was completly redesigned...can you guess why?

Tell me where I said that new designs don't work?

And movie Goblin looked stupid for the record.
This more "realistic" version got compared to a Power Ranger costume by some.
It looked MORE childish and silly, not less.

Bottom Out wrote:just because they are not boxy doesnt mean they arent similar enough to be unrecognizable.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:I'm not one who says they look nothing like Transformers, because most designs do have enough in them that they do.
But they have lost a lot of their uniqueness and do resemble other mech.

Try debating my actual beliefs and not what you assume they are because I don't worship the movie.

Bottom Out wrote:bending metal isnt realistic? these transformers can change thier entire molecular structure with a scan of an object..it should be assumed that they can do this...as for the rubber tires..you know its not rubber..they are made out of metal..they dont scan a semi driving by the highway and then stop at firestone before they roll out...its part of thier body just like everything else..

Lets put it this way, bending metal is no more realistic on these designs that they are on G1 designs, so if it's realistic enough for one, it's realistic enough for the other.
And bending metal was one of the reason people gave for G1 designs not being used.

As for the tires, the movie designs are full on disguises.
We have been told by many that the old designs are unrealistic disguises; that a mechanic could lift the hood and see a giant head or whatever and that the new designs remove all those issues.

If the tires are metal, that's not the case.
I'm sure I don't have to explain how differently they'd look, feel and react on the road whilst carrying the weight of a car.
If they're rubber or look and feel like rubber, then it's alien tech, which is the same excuse G1 based designs use.

Bottom Out wrote:
correction...they ARE now...

These designs would not last for long with the exposed parts they have.
As well as being weaknesses enemies could exploit, the elements would cause them so much grief it's unbelievable.

Imagine the damage your face would take from wind, dust, rain if you had no skin.
Same thing here.

Bottom Out wrote:
i have no clue what the self building house is...im guessing that it doesnt go from mansion to outhouse though, and as for the citroen bot..it was a commercial for a car...it has to look like the car that its selling....

The self building house was a small briefcase sized box that unfolded into a two story house.
And yeah, the citroen looked like the car for sales reasons, but that was still the more traditional look and people still bought it.

Bottom Out wrote:would people accept mass shifting and boxy transformers come 7/4...probably...

And that's what I'm arguing.

Nowhere do I say it should be this way, but I'm sick and tired of comments that it never could have been this way.

As for your belief that it's better as is, I disagree.

I'd put money on designs that retained the movie detail whilst keeping the G1 style would please you just as much, and at the same time it wouldn't alienate those who like Transformers visually for the traditional design.

This makes it a film with broader appeal and more depth, which in turn makes it a better movie for it.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:These designs would not last for long with the exposed parts they have.
As well as being weaknesses enemies could exploit, the elements would cause them so much grief it's unbelievable.

Imagine the damage your face would take from wind, dust, rain if you had no skin.
Same thing here.

I'm not so sure about this little bit. After all, we don't know how durable Cybertronian tech - even the tech of internal components - is compared to our Earthly technologies. Earth elements may not affect the TF's at all.

Leonardo wrote:I'm not so sure about this little bit. After all, we don't know how durable Cybertronian tech - even the tech of internal components - is compared to our Earthly technologies. Earth elements may not affect the TF's at all.

Well it is possible that they're comprised entirely of alien metals we haven't discovered yet, but again, one of the reasons the G1 show designs as movie designs have been classed as unrealistic so much is because they'd have to be entirely made up of fictional metals.

Which if course takes us back to the whole hypocrisy of one being unrealistic because it needs alien tech and the other being realistic despite needing alien tech.

"You're not thinking fourth dimensionally"

Hot_Rod wrote:

Sonray wrote:I dont care what anyone says, im going to see the TF movie and im going to like the TF movie.

Sounds like you already made up your mind before you even saw it. It gets me how some are critisized for not wanting to pay their hard earned money to see a movie they feal they'll proably not like, but then you have people like this who have done the exact same thing just with the mind made up that they will like it no matter what.

As for the discussions about G1 inspired designs not being able to look believably real...

They say a Picture is worth a thousand words so I give you exhibit A...

http://www.jesterpictures.com/transformers/gallery.html

The Devastator video at the bottom is especially good!

If a fan can do that, I can only imagine what a proffesional could do!

Erm...obviously you havnt read my other comments. I know i am going to like the TF movie because one, its a TF movie! and two, i like micheal bay flicks and he hasnt made one film yet that i didnt enjoy. Yes, thats right, i even enjoyed Pearl Harbor, so sue me!

So its not a case of "mind made up" its just i know what i like.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:Sorry, but that's as baseless as my saying that more know the comic.
The show is well known, especially in America, but it's not like that on a global level.

On top of that, the show was cancelled after 3 seasons. The more "well known" version you talk of died like many shows.
It was the G1 comic, which lasted for 8 years that kept the line going, and it was this that laid the foundation for much of the future of the franchise.

its an american movie, made for an american audiance, it doesnt matter if the rest of the world knows the comics.

G2 was a continuation of the comic, Beast Wars, features the Vok, who one of the creators intended to be an evolution of the swarm, a comic only device, as well as other things, A/E/C saw the god version of Unicron return and Cybertron being Primus.

Again, the depth and richness of the comic, not the stuff from the show.

I understand what you're saying but none of this has to do with the movie being made...

The show is iconic, especially in terms of visuals and voices, but whether you knew it or not, a huge chunk of what has kept the franchise going since 1988 has been the comic itself or has been taken from the comic and put into new lines.

again though, this movie isnt being made because hollywood saw a goldmine in it...no one even wanted the movie...and as a matter of fact GIJoe was supposed to be whats comming out this 4th...Transformers was/is a risk because they know there wasnt a "demand" for it.

Once again, there is more to a character than superficial likenesses.

what are the characters in this film missing? I would really like to know..because unless you had an advacned screening of this film...theres no way for you to say they are missing anything character wise.

Tell me where I said that new designs don't work?

you didnt..you showed examples of how old designs worked, and i showed examples of how new designs worked...thats all

And movie Goblin looked stupid for the record.
This more "realistic" version got compared to a Power Ranger costume by some.
It looked MORE childish and silly, not less.

but it more realistic. would it be more believable seeing a mutant green goblin flying around?

Theres no way you can answer that question witha "yes"

I'm not one who says they look nothing like Transformers, because most designs do have enough in them that they do.
But they have lost a lot of their uniqueness and do resemble other mech.

sorry about that, it gets hard to decipher on these boards between those who automatically hate the designs soley due to them not being boxy. As for the mech comment though...they do look like mechs, but they wont move like them, and that will set them apart.

Try debating my actual beliefs and not what you assume they are because I don't worship the movie.

..scary..

Lets put it this way, bending metal is no more realistic on these designs that they are on G1 designs, so if it's realistic enough for one, it's realistic enough for the other.
And bending metal was one of the reason people gave for G1 designs not being used.

the way the metal bends in the g1 cartoon is as if its liquid metal (i.e thier faces). These robots dont have that...thats whay was being refered to when they said there wouldbe no bending metal. A G1 design would not realisticly transform into a car..there would be giant blocks where an engine should be...no inside cabin space...etc..and that why its less realistic

As for the tires, the movie designs are full on disguises.
We have been told by many that the old designs are unrealistic disguises; that a mechanic could lift the hood and see a giant head or whatever and that The new designs remove all those issues.

If the tires are metal, that's not the case.
I'm sure I don't have to explain how differently they'd look, feel and react on the road whilst carrying the weight of a car.
If they're rubber or look and feel like rubber, then it's alien tech, which is the same excuse G1 based designs use.

metal tires wouldnt cause as much question as a giant head under a hood...in anycase though..maybe they are rubber tires..ive never seen anyones tires bend or become seperate peices anyways..

These designs would not last for long with the exposed parts they have.

As well as being weaknesses enemies could exploit, the elements would cause them so much grief it's unbelievable.

Imagine the damage your face would take from wind, dust, rain if you had no skin.
Same thing here.

im assuming you havent read the bios of the robots so far it says every single one of them has been coated in some type of cybertronion metal which says protects them from virtually all damage... i dont agree with that..but those are the breaks...sacrifice this aspect of the movie so the rest of it works better...

The self building house was a small briefcase sized box that unfolded into a two story house.
And yeah, the citroen looked like the car for sales reasons, but that was still the more traditional look and people still bought it.

is the self building house believable to you though? when you watch it form into a 2 story house are you wondering to yourself if that can ever be possible?

Bay wants people to wonder if this can ever be possible..if it can one day really be real...

As for the citroen (great commercial btw) it does look good, i admit that..i like it...but that design would fail in all the other aspects that Bay wants for this movie...the whole "head under the hood" concept.

And that's what I'm arguing.

Nowhere do I say it should be this way, but I'm sick and tired of comments that it never could have been this way.

dont get me wrong... it could definetly be the way you'd like to see it...it just would be as "amazing" on the big screen...people like to wonder "what if"...its the same reason jurrasic park was such a hit...what if dinosaurs could really be recreated...what if transformers are real and really landed on earth...

As for your belief that it's better as is, I disagree.

I'd put money on designs that retained the movie detail whilst keeping the G1 style would please you just as much, and at the same time it wouldn't alienate those who like Transformers visually for the traditional design.

it would, definetly, but thats because im a transformer fan. I was expecting them to look like what i grew up with...when i first saw the designs i hated them...i mean look at my sig....but after reading countless interviews, looking at dozens of pictures, reading the script, I've realized why they did it this way...and i like it just as much.

This makes it a film with broader appeal and more depth, which in turn makes it a better movie for it.

perhaps...or it could turn away the casual transformer fans, and non transformer fans. With the new designs not only do the current transfans get a movie they can enjoy, the rest of the world does too...these designs are garenteed to please the average movie goer...as much as i love fan service...i want this movie to make millions of dollars too..i want a transformers 2, and 3...

what it comes down to is "are you a selfish transformer fan or not?"

I much rather have a movie that will appeal to everyone than just me and our small circle of g1 die hards...

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:

Leonardo wrote:I'm not so sure about this little bit. After all, we don't know how durable Cybertronian tech - even the tech of internal components - is compared to our Earthly technologies. Earth elements may not affect the TF's at all.

Well it is possible that they're comprised entirely of alien metals we haven't discovered yet, but again, one of the reasons the G1 show designs as movie designs have been classed as unrealistic so much is because they'd have to be entirely made up of fictional metals.

Which if course takes us back to the whole hypocrisy of one being unrealistic because it needs alien tech and the other being realistic despite needing alien tech.

alien metals are not unrealistic, alien metals are pretty much a given...for all we know there are a million elements that belong on the periodic table...except earth and earths galaxy only holds ~150 of them

How about this as an excuse...(youd better sit down for this as it might cause a seizure or a brain hemrrohage)

ITS A PIECE OF FICTIONAL** MATERIAL AND NONE OF THESE CHARACTERS OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXSIST! THEREFORE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHY THEIR DESIGNS ARE FLAWED IN COMPARISON TO THE ORIGINAL, FICTIONAL**, G1 DESIGNS BECAUSE OF EXPOSED MOVING PARTS IS A COMPLETELY MOOT POINT IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD! IT IS CALLED A MOVIE NOT A DOCUMENTARY*!

**fic·tion /ˈfɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.


*doc·u·men·ta·ry (dŏk'yə-mĕn'tə-rē) pronunciation
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


No more questions your honour. (i just got done watching Law and order. )

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:And movie Goblin looked stupid for the record.
This more "realistic" version got compared to a Power Ranger costume by some.
It looked MORE childish and silly, not less.

And an argument could be made that the original costume would look childish and silly on the big screen. There's more to it than looks. Willem Defoe made the character great despite the hindrance of not being able to see his facial expressions at all.

Bottom Out wrote:sorry about that, it gets hard to decipher on these boards between those who automatically hate the designs soley due to them not being boxy.

That's fair enough. It happens a lot. Not many people respond like you just did though, they just ignore and continue calling me and many others who don't hate, haters.
It can get a person very defensive.

So thanks for actually not doing that.

Bottom Out wrote:what are the characters in this film missing?

Okay, this one was my bad.

It should have said there is more to the franchise than superficial likenesses.

Take cartoon Prime and comic Prime.
Both are the exact same character.
However, cartoon Prime is critisized by many for being too good.
Comic prime gets the same allegations, but far less and many say he's more real, more flawed.

He's actually not; the world he's in, the mythos he's given just allows us to see aspects of the same personality that the show's simplifed world just didn't allow.

That's why X-Men worked for instance, the movie really picked up on the comic's mythos as opposed to the cartoon's and the characters words and actions had more depth and impact as a result.

Bottom Out wrote:its an american movie, made for an american audiance, it doesnt matter if the rest of the world knows the comics.

That's not true.

Like every other big budget movie, the American profit is only a part of the overall profit.
Look at the figures for Spiderman in the US and then at the international figures or look at the international promotion budgets.
These things are huge because the rest of the world is a large contributor and pleasing us is as important as pleasing you.

Very few films are made in any country with only one area in mind.

Bottom Out wrote:I understand what you're saying but none of this has to do with the movie being made...

The comic had depth. That depth is what has fuelled every series since.
The movie seems to skip that, ignoring a large part of what has made Transformers a 20 year long franchise and basing itself on a cartoon that lasted three seasons.

Bottom Out wrote:
would it be more believable seeing a mutant green goblin flying around?

In a movie where a guy gets bitten by a spider and gets it's abilities?

Sure, but I was just going to suggest a latex mask, people always buy it in movies.

Bottom Out wrote:i dont agree with that..but those are the breaks...sacrifice this aspect of the movie so the rest of it works better...

That's just it, I do agree, I have no issue with that, but then I'd have no issue with the G1 bots having similar explanations.

My comments on realism are aimed towards those such as Sonray who will accept these leaps of faith and call it realistic with the movie designs, but insists G1 will not work, despite there being similar "cheats" for that.

Bottom Out wrote:is the self building house believable to you though?

Yep.

Illusion is everything.

Whether it's the house, Dinosaurs coming to life or an old fashioned magic tricks, we see so we believe.

Even if we wonder later on, in that moment we believe.

And in terms of holding up under scrutiny, I could still believe it.
With modern tech, there's no way, but in the future maybe.

And these are aliens.

Bottom Out wrote:As for the citroen (great commercial btw) it does look good, i admit that..i like it...but that design would fail in all the other aspects that Bay wants for this movie...the whole "head under the hood" concept.

I'm fairly confident that Alt Jazz could be made to look like a real car under the hood.
The only limitations would be the skill of the person doing it and the fact it's a 1:24 scale toy.

If that's possible, there's no way the movie designers couldn't on a 1:1 scale.

Bottom Out wrote:what it comes down to is "are you a selfish transformer fan or not?"

There's two ways to answer.

The first is that I don't believe that the other way would be detrimental.
I believe it would be more inclusive for all, just as you do with this version.

If you believe that something will add to the experience, improve it for some without ruining it for the rest, I wouldn't call that selfish.

The second answer is that we all are selfish.

Earlier you said this film was for Americans.
The rest of the world sinks hundreds of millions in, combined it actually sometimes out performs the US, yet your reaction was it's "yours".

Similarly, when everyone first heard that the TFs wouldn't talk, something they did glady change, EVERYONE was selfish.
The ones who wanted it that way really did believe that non fan audiences wanted imposing personalityless alien invaders, but we wanted different.
And we're not entirely wrong. They can make something different to Transformers any time, they can only make Transformers once.

The Paragon of Virtue wrote:Willem Defoe made the character great despite the hindrance of not being able to see his facial expressions at all.

I totally disagree.

Dafoe gave me chills when he was Norman. His physical acting, his face sold that character and made a good if slightly camp performance believable and menacing.
The mask ruined that and whilst Dafoe was on form, these were his weakest moments.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:I totally disagree.

Dafoe gave me chills when he was Norman. His physical acting, his face sold that character and made a good if slightly camp performance believable and menacing.
The mask ruined that and whilst Dafoe was on form, these were his weakest moments.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree since neither of us can be wrong on this. I think Dafoe did a great job the whole way around.

Blackstreak wrote:I like that: "Could we stop and relax on the whining?" Whether Optimus has a 'mouth' or a 'battle shield' shouldn't matter. We are seeing our childhood heroes on the big screen and that is enough to be elated about. I can't wait to see it.

Eh, but we're NOT seeing our childhood heroes (or even villains) on the big screen,
We're seeing them through the eyes of artsy fartsy people who don't give a ****.
Through the eyes of people changing things for the sake of changing things.

It's like videogames.
A classic game can be GREAT one second, then some fruit-loop designers a few decades later take steps to make it look nothing like the initial item did.

So there's CGI effects all over the place. Big deal.
They still look fake as all hell, as well as just being an all-too-common thing seen in EVERY movie nowadays.

There are no more "special effects" anymore.

Just like with videogames, alot of developers only care how many polygons they can piss out... not whether the game is fun or not.
Same thing with the Transformers movie, the only concern being "how many different CGI elements can we make things up of"?

Going back to these being our "childhood heroes", Fireblast had it right:

What's ironic is Spider-Man 3 gave fans their dreams come true with Venom and staying close to the classic designs and giving fans what they want. On the other hand the Transformers movie we are given what somebody else wants and the fans really don't have a say to well, anything.

I've said it a million times and I'll say it ten million more.
The designs did NOT need to be changed this ass-tastically to make a good, profitable movie.They can ONLY harm it, which you can bet it has.

My avatar pic would be different and happy if the designers didn't go crazy just to look like they were busy in front of their clueless bosses.

Bottom Out wrote:
sorry about that, it gets hard to decipher on these boards between those who automatically hate the designs soley due to them not being boxy.

FACT: They could've been "not boxy" and still resembled the originals in character and likeness.
The idea that making them look classic TOTALLY negates them being more realistic is just ignorant.

Riotflea wrote:The designs did NOT need to be changed this ass-tastically to make a good, profitable movie.They can ONLY harm it, which you can bet it has.

We don't know that's true, though. In the film, the designs might look excellent. If they'd used blocky designs, they may have looked poor. None of the fan videos that use the blocky designs that I have seen have been very good or convincing.

Leonardo wrote:

Riotflea wrote:The designs did NOT need to be changed this ass-tastically to make a good, profitable movie.They can ONLY harm it, which you can bet it has.

We don't know that's true, though. In the film, the designs might look excellent. If they'd used blocky designs, they may have looked poor. None of the fan videos that use the blocky designs that I have seen have been very good or convincing.

As I said, they DON'T need to be blocky to still BE the character.
These designs are an ACID TRIP, not any sane attempt at emulating any certain characters.

You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Starscream is a Waspinator-headed gorilla?
You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Megatron is Bandai's DinoZone Gigano Dragon?
You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Frenzy (eh, Soundwave?) is a mix between General Grievous and a SHRIMP?

Dude... NO EFFORT was put into them. They are merely CGI scraps, easily and quickly assembled.

Riotflea wrote:

Leonardo wrote:

Riotflea wrote:The designs did NOT need to be changed this ass-tastically to make a good, profitable movie.They can ONLY harm it, which you can bet it has.

We don't know that's true, though. In the film, the designs might look excellent. If they'd used blocky designs, they may have looked poor. None of the fan videos that use the blocky designs that I have seen have been very good or convincing.

As I said, they DON'T need to be blocky to still BE the character.
These designs are an ACID TRIP, not any sane attempt at emulating any certain characters.

You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Starscream is a Waspinator-headed gorilla?
You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Megatron is Bandai's DinoZone Gigano Dragon?
You're telling me the ONLY non-blocky alternative to Frenzy (eh, Soundwave?) is a mix between General Grievous and a SHRIMP?

Dude... NO EFFORT was put into them. They are merely CGI scraps, easily and quickly assembled.

I would imagine that a lot of effort was put into them, especially if they accurately transform.

But no, I don't think they are the only alternative to blocky designs. What should they have done, though? Less wiring, internal components? Less complex transformations? I don't think these are necessarily better designs than other ideas that may or may not have been rejected, but I'm not 100% convinced that they're any worse than any other designs, either. Until I see designs that betters these, I'd say they're a good job.

Of course, there are things I dislike. Frenzy is one. Ratchet's face is another, as is Bumblebee's. But everything else I'm fine with.

Well for starters, would it have been impossible to get their colors right?

How about head resemblance? Impossible? Fans pulled it off beautifully.

And looking at the script, why would adding a bit of their individual character to them have been so hard?

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume the voices have unfaithfully eaten dirt too.

Bah... it's all just a giant undertaking of not giving a damn about the most basic source materials.

And you can't tell me a boombox that transforms has to be blocky OR look like what these guys turn it into.
There's a balance in between, but it wasn't touched on.

Why do the colours have to be the same? Why do the heads have to be the same? There have been countless re-uses of names on toys that don't resemble each other, and this gets translated into the various fictions. Why should this be any different?

As for the script, well, I don't know whether they've embellished any of the TF's characters. We'll have to wait and see. They may be some of the most well-rounded characters ins ci-fi history. Then again, the may be 2D archetypes. We can't judge until we've seen it.

As for the balance in-between, how do we know what designs they've considered? This movie's been in the works for a while. Maybe they had other designs that just didn't work and so had to be discarded.

Why do the colours have to be the same? Why do the heads have to be the same? There have been countless re-uses of names on toys that don't resemble each other, and this gets translated into the various fictions. Why should this be any different?

Egad... ok, this movie is called the Transformers.

Exactly what criteria need to still exist for you so it can still have that name?

If you care nothing for colors, faces, etc etc on characters... then you're just happy that they have the name?

Or something?

Why couldn't Megatron in his current form have just as easily been Cy-Kill in an updated Gobots movie? Doesn't resemble old Megatron or old Cy-Kill... so the thing's good for any name, isn't it?

As for the balance in-between, how do we know what designs they've considered? This movie's been in the works for a while. Maybe they had other designs that just didn't work and so had to be discarded.

True, there obviously were other designs left on the cutting room floor. But my friend, would you not agree that the designs they DID choose are like choosing a spoon with which to eat a plate of spaghetti?
Like a fork for soup?

Yes, this movie is based on a toy line. It's a new continuity with new characters. Given that it's based on a range of action figures, exactly what template is it supposed to live up to? What changes would you make to these characters to make them truer to form?

As I've said, the personalities may be convincing, but we won't know until we see the film. All we've got are stills and design artwork, and short, snappy clips in trailers. It's a moot point anyway, given that this is a new continuity and they can create any new personalities they like.

Leonardo wrote:Yes, this movie is based on a toy line. It's a new continuity with new characters. Given that it's based on a range of action figures, exactly what template is it supposed to live up to? What changes would you make to these characters to make them truer to form?

To keep whiney fans like me and others happy, an assorted mix of these things, at least the attempt, though all might not be feasible for every guy:
-head recognition
-color recognition
-character recognition
-voice recognition

As I've said, the personalities may be convincing, but we won't know until we see the film. All we've got are stills and design artwork, and short, snappy clips in trailers. It's a moot point anyway, given that this is a new continuity and they can create any new personalities they like.

I ask again... at what point do YOU stop calling it "The Transformers"?
You only merely need to see a robot that transforms, ANY robot, and you're good to go?

For me, Transformers is about a civil war on Cybertron that is transferred to Earth for whatever reason[s], and the socio-political effects of that war on both the TF's and 'us' on Earth. That is probably a thumbnail sketch of how I would define Transformers.

The problem with your list of recognitions is that for recognitions to work, one has to tie any given movie character to a previous namesake. Why does Movie Jazz have to have anything to do with G1 Jazz, for example? Why can't they just be totally new characters?

Why can't they just be new characters?

They can.

Only realize, there's ALOT of people who spent ALOT of their life being familiarized with those characters.

Go crazy and... well, what you see happening now is the result.
Disenfranchised fans. But as they said in no uncertain terms, "So what? It's summer, it's a movie, there's CGI, there's action, and a recognizable title slapped on it... "fans" are only a small chunk of our profit".

For me, Transformers is about a civil war on Cybertron that is transferred to Earth for whatever reason[s], and the socio-political effects of that war on both the TF's and 'us' on Earth.

Cool. Now what stops that from being "Gobotron"?
(I think that was the name of their planet...)

Yes, I know there is a lot of people who are familiar with certain characters. I'm mostly familiar with G1 and BW, but I wouldn't expect, or even necessarily want, a movie that's being released now to reflect anything from those previous continuities. Not all of the fans are disenfranchised. This movie doesn't alter my love of G1 toys or comics, for example.

This movie was always going to be a moneyspinner. That's what Transformers is, a franchise. It's the same as the cartoons or Hasbro releasing numerous repaints. It's all to make money. Transformers is, ultimately, about profit. I'll still see the movie. I don't think I'll enjoy it, but I'll take what I can from it, then go home and re-read my comics.