Re: Transformers Fall of Cybertron E3 Metroplex footage
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:02 am
I think I see what the problem is. When I last responded to orangeitis, I accidentally left in some bits of his quoted post that I forgot to erase, which caused your post to get a bit jumbled up when responding to us both. I edited my post to get rid of the unwanted bits, and have also attempted to fix the code of you post for ya. Here ya go.
Dead Metal wrote:Now this is kinda unfair and I usualy don't like doing it, but since Sabreblade has brought up some of the points I was going to bring up, I will simply elaborate.That is indeed how this works, Hasbro submits a story and bible, highlighting what they want to have in the game, High Moon adapts it and submits changes. Some of which make it in others don't.Sabrblade wrote:I think the stories of the games are more of a joint-effort between High Moon and Hasbro, with High Moon providing the more specific plot details, and Hasbro giving the basic overall plot and some pointers on how it's supposed to abide by the established timeline of the Binder. Though, now that I think about it, this would be a good question to ask at the next BotCon or whatever convention next has a FOC panel.orangeitis wrote:But... they weren't. High Moon wrote the stories for the game and submits them to Hasbro for approval. That's why we're even getting Dinobots in FoC. If it was just up to Hasbro, they wouldn't have even been considered.Dead Metal wrote:Not what Hasbro wanted, and seeing how the games are simply adaptations of the Prime universe backstory written by Hasbro, well.The Transformers Movie comics are all made to be in continuity with the movies, which is why the writers always work closely with idw. Sadly the comics have dead lines to adhere to in terms of getting work done while movies can be changed very close to the release date. The first TF movie for instance received its final cut two weeks before the premier, a point in which the comics had already been trade form.Sabrblade wrote:In the specific cases of the Bay movies, I think the way those movies and their comics and novel adaptations are treated is that, while the final cut versions of the movies themselves are treated as the most canon versions, anything in the adaptations that didn't make it into the films that doesn't contradict the films themselves (like certain details about the Harvester in ROTF) can also be considered canon to the films' continuity, while anything in the adaptations that is in conflict with the films (like Barricade outright dying in the Movie 1 comic) is definitely not canon to the films. Though, this is still a shaky idea, but it does better help the continuity of the films work with their prequel/sequel comics.orangeitis wrote:Movies and novel adaptions are always different continuities, as far as I know.Dead Metal wrote:Yes it's a telling of the same history, and they both contradict each other, this is due to them being made at the same time by different people, using older/ never versions of the same material. Just like comic and novel adaptations of Movies, they have to be released at about the same time as the movie they're based on so they work with older scripts, and very often they won't get any updated material.
Reign of Starscream even went through 4 rewrites before the movie team gave the final OK, they even referenced it in ROTF and changed Starscreams character model to match that of the comic.Ah that video, OK let me quote what he says:Sabrblade wrote:What immediately follows after his saying that it's grounded in the G1 cartoon makes it sound like means that the game's character aesthetics are grounded in the G1 cartoon, meaning that the designs (rather than the entire game) are directly taken from the G1 cartoon and then, as he says, modernized to get the new look we have now.orangeitis wrote:That was an example of one interview. There are others. Another such example is this.Dead Metal wrote:Again, that was one interview, with someone who only knows the old stuff and the movies, out of many official interviews and statements.He's talking about the design aspect of the game, here's another video in which he elaborates on this:Matt Tieger wrote:Honestly, this is the game that I've been waiting 25 years for to play. It's very nostalgic in that it's grounded in the Generation 1, G1, 1984 cartoon. We took a lot of our colours, feel, and style for the characters when we designed them and then modernised those. So we figured out what made an Autobot an Autobot and a Decepticon a Decepticon, and we figured out the styles for those but it all had to be grounded in that cartoon feel - but modern, and realistic, and gritty.He's talking about feeling and the design style, he's not talking about this being part of it. So if you try to use him talking about the feel and design of the game being similar and based on G1 as your argument for it being G1, well you're also putting this in the same universes as Tron, Aliens, and Blade Runner.Design team including Tieger wrote:What we first did - was a lot of research. And we came up with a story that was always touching back to G1, that cartoon from the '80s, right? And made sure that that was our primary touchstone, and then we drew inspiration from other places but, that was our cornerstone.
And we went back to the Generation 1 cartoon, and the Generation 1 movie, and then there where other influences like Tron, and Bladerunner, and some of the textual sciencefiction stuff that we tried to bring in like Aliens.