i am only geting this figure because he was in the movie

 

(say this quote above to your self in the whiniest inner voice possible)

Don't forget the Devastor's sack playset, Legends humping action wheelie, Deluxe action wiz bumblebee, and Leader class murderous face ripping Optimus (complete with the torn face of the Fallen and the split head Grinder)

I would say that in person, but I am kinda kidding too, In an annoying roommate kind of way...

Okay I'll stop.... I'm getting sleepy

 

IMHO Lame as hell.

 

Which is fair... there are a number of the stranger designs that I quite like for one reason or another... though as Transformers, I still like my bots to look like...well, Transformers I guess. There are a number of factors that can make a figure "work" or not. There are many "classic" style figures that fail pretty hard... just as some of the more monstrous movie bots are not necessarily automatically "original" or "creative" just by virtue of their freakish awkwardness. Sometimes they're just poorly-designed or plain stupid-looking.  

Ah, you mean wooden puppets... yeah, the rigid geometric nose does have that quality, and not necessarily without reason, since G1 faces do tend to be approximations of humanoid faces made out of flat planes, with minimal articulation. Interestingly, EJ Su's recent Megatron cover for IDW's TF TPB shows some interesting sliding plates on his face that rather nicely bridge the gap between the overly busy and skeletal Bayformer faces, and the cartoonishly static (or rubbery) faces of oldschool G1.

I took your "puppet" comment in the broader, more contemporary Muppety context. Many of the Animated character designs do have a Henson-esque quality (Bulkhead only being one of the more obvious examples).

It's one way of looking at it... but I also see some of the movie-style designs as being sort of cheap. With only the most amorphous and loosely-defined strictures of "humanoid robot" to conform to, it sometimes seems as if they could arbitrarily decide to stop a transformation almost anywhere in the process, and just call it finished... even if it looks unwieldy or kibble-bound. The notion of "transformation" becomes diminished, since the final product itself becomes an "anything goes" monster, and certain problems of proportion or humanoid aesthetic are left unsolved.

For what it's worth, this can go the other way too, especially with futuristic alt modes and "cybertronian" forms. It somehow feels cheap to have a robot that transforms into something that, well... doesn't really look like anything anyway. Where's the fun in that? I didn't think much of Megatron's "flying scissors" alt-mode in the first movie, but I have to say, his "flat panel with gun barrel on it" WFC alt-mode is probably worse.

ROTF Demolishor is one example that bugs me... the vehicle is quite nice, and the engineering applied to the structure of the huge central wheel is fascinating and well-achieved. Even the concept of a robot with a wheel instead of legs can be appealing (anybody remember Jerrok from Robotix?), but in the end, Demolishor just looks sort of crappy and awkwardly proportioned, with giant impractical "arms" that defy function. In the movie he gains a certain impact by virtue of his tremendous size, but at his core, and especially as a toy, he's a pretty shitty concept.

I think when it comes down to it, it's undeniable that humans respond better to things that possess recognizable forms... be that a basic humanoid structure, or something that seems identifiable as a flying vehicle or animal. Deviate too far from that, and you'll start to lose people. It's just common sense.

Fans will jump on anything EVERY time the formula changes... whether it's BW or Animated or Bayformers. I think the reason that the movie designs seemed to elicit especially volatile responses is obvious... it was by FAR the most prominent, ostentatious depiction that Transformers had received in 20 years or so. It was an opportunity for longtime fans to finally realize that childhood dream of seeing Transformers somehow rendered into a reasonable simulation of photo-realism, and for many fans, I'm sure it seemed like the first and last chance to do so. It's not so hard to imagine how it must have felt when the designs that emerged were not only barely recognizable... but apparently consciously designed to be as far from the "classical" aesthetic of Transformers as possible.

Sounds like a recipe for alienation to me.

zmog

 

It looks like Starscream's baby.

 

Well, I guess it's just one man's biased opinion against anothers.

Transformers don't need to always be humanoid. In fact in some cases trying to force a human shape from some alt-modes doesn't always work. A good character designer would know how to work with the pieces they're given and figure out a good way to build that into something else. That's creativity.
And also sometimes it's just fun to see something that breaks up the norm.

That's just kind of the crux of the fiction. You have a cybertronian mode that looks like a vehicle and fans question how that makes sense. You have one that makes more sense as just an alternate mode of locomotion or function, and fans complain it doesn't look like anything.

Says one man's opinion.
Demolishor was one of the more radical designs from the films, and he probably did work better in film then as a toy. Though personally his figure has really grown on me.

Not always. I find that to be a fairly cheap excuse, and for those that do think that way are simply superficial types with no imagination.
But that's my opinion.

Basically my personal beef is with those who don't like something and then try and cough up some bs to make it so that those who do like it are fools for doing so.
For that, I'm always going to rag on them a bit...Not very zen I'll admit, but then no one's perfect.

 

Yeah, well... I'm a believer in the idea that qualitative analysis DOES exist, and that sometimes some opinions CAN be inherently more "right" than others... so biases or not, some of the "movie" transformers are just BAD designs. Sometimes they're bad designs executed well... sometimes not even that.

Though, yes... obviously certain stylistic schools must be delineated, and judged on their own merits rather than always a broad application of personal preference.

Agreed... though creativity often triumphs most in adversity. Brilliant engineering can sometimes wring a humanoid form (for example) out of the most unlikely alt-mode and make it work. Likewise stopping with something incoherent or half-assed just because you're not sure how to get from Point A to Point B with what you have, isn't necessarily "creative".

There are a lot of creative and unusual Movie TF designs... I just want to point out that "different" doesn't always indicate the presence of quality or "originality". Likewise, adhering to a humanoid aesthetic doesn't always guarantee I'll like it. Movie Megatron is a pretty bad design in both of his incarnations, substituting a surplus of detail and sharp edges/appendages for coherency or personality. Likewise, Movie Starscream, a design I absolutely HATE for the character, is undeniably distinctive and conveys personality (even if inappropriate in terms of adaptation).

It is a dilemma, and not an easy one to resolve... Cybertronian modes have always been problematic for those reasons. Personally, I don't have much use for them... stick to the motif of "disguise" and recognizable objects, and you will not go far wrong. That has always been the core charm of Transformers.

It's one of the things that both impresses me and disappoints me about many of the Bayformer designs... with a few notable exceptions, they all transform into very realistic, identifiable objects and vehicles, which after the A/E/C years, is wonderful. It's unfortunate that now it's the robot modes that often tend not to impress.

Like a fungus. There are some horrible radio songs and atrocious movies that I can gain an affinity for as well. But my affinity doesn't elevate them. Bad design is still bad.

Only an idiot would discount the basic human need to identify themselves somehow in their environment. And only an arrogant one would attribute it to a lack of imagination.

Interestingly, I'm usually the one that argues in favour of emphasizing those aspects Transformers that make them alien or different from us, because the examination of those differences leads to a more interesting dynamic (much as District 9 eclipses Avatar in terms of creating an meaningful correlation between human and alien for those reasons).

However, my problem with many of the movie designs are twofold...

Much was made of their more "realistic" alien styling. Fine... why should mechanical alien beings from across the cosmos really look at all like us? But then, how much of that same challenging, intellectual approach was applied to the writing of said characters? None. And in terms of design, it quickly becomes a simplistic superficial affectation, as most Autobots look take on remarkably human characteristics, while Decepticons end up looking like nightmare creatures made of animal parts, fangs and knives... for no other reason than simply to make them identifiably "evil" and scary for humans. Sometimes you end up with stuff that is little more than cheap lifts from other iconic designs (Movie Ravage to Alien much?) that have already carved out their own niche. For all the posturing about the "realism" of the Bayformer designs, they ultimately end up being more ridiculousy caricatured and cartoonishly humanized/demonized than any recent interpretation of the supposedly more "childish" G1-style material.

Secondly, if you make something unrelentingly alien, you again face the problem of dissociation. Striking the right balance is essential. Traditionally, G1 transformers already have a recognizable "friendly" quality... undermining that association by addressing how internally and culturally they are incredibly different from us creates a potentially fruitful discord... like the fundamental tenets of Surrealism, it is this contrast/conflict that elevates us to a more creative and insightful state.

Not only "not zen", but downright hypocritical... especially if you prefer to "rag on them" to actually engaging with them in an open discourse.

And yet the problem here is that you assume that "reasons" for liking or not liking something are irrelevant. Reason is not "bullshit"... and in fact the process of articulating our opinions rather than reducing them to the most basic like/dislike binary is at the whole core of critical thinking and certainly within the spirit of discourse in a forum.

In fact, I think that the ability to articulate, reason and support your point of view is the foundation of good taste. Anti-intellectualism and the presumed democracy of opinion, regardless of merit, has absolutely destroyed the value of ideas, opinions and the ability to reflect on them.

zmog

 

Me likes, kind of TFA waspinator, movie style.

 

What it all boils down to is that you don't agree with me, and I dont agree with you.
I'm willing to let it go at that. But the thing with you is that you want your opinion to be the "right" opinion that sets the rule for everyone else. That's what I don't like. And that's what I dont respect. Your opinion, I do. You have a right to it. I don't agree, but I'll respect it's your preference.
The fans that I poke fun at are the ones that don't show this kind of respect.
Hypocritical? Perhaps. I perfer to think it's only fair game.

The "bullshit" I was referring to were the ones who make generalizations like: "These aren't true transformers." "These toys are all garbage." "Theres are BAD designs."
Even if this is true for the one saying it, does not make it true for everyone.

Not always. It's a good way to articulate one's personal taste. But that still doesn't apply as a general rule.

No, I think that is where you have it backwards.
But regardless, this is really why I can hardly take anything you say seriously. You try and promote yourself as some kind of highbrow intellectual that stands above the rest of us little people, when in the end all we are actually arguing over are toy robots.
I do this cause I want to have fun. You seem to want to turn it into politics...That's not fun. Transformers in all of it's incarnations, fictional entertainment or toy, will always come down to the subjective nature of personal preference. That is the only general rule that applies here.

Yes, I know, you wont agree with me. I don't really expect you too. But I figured I still needed to defend my opinion. Even if you think it's "wrong."

 

I don't even know what we're arguing about in this context, or how it relates to ROTF Insecticon, so I'm not sure what "right" opinion you even think I'm championing.

However I AM asserting my belief that "right" and "wrong" are terms that can ABSOLUTELY be applied to "matters of opinion" in a great many cases. There's an enormous misconception going around that an opinion is something that must be respected as a matter of personal rights... which is such a subversion of the whole notion of free society, that it's become cancerous.

Obviously there are times that I can respect opposing opinions, and times I acknowledge that subjectivity is a valid factor... but even so, the rampant philosophy of casual subjectivism has, more than anything, eroded critical thinking, qualitative analysis, cultural criticism and even basic human self-reflection. People often no longer bother to examine, articulate or support their opinions, and that's dangerous... because it favours the romantic, often misleading idea of "gut instinct" over rationality. Rather than reflecting on one's opinions, the default reaction tends to be "that's my opinion, so you're not allowed to be critical of it!".

See, based on past experience with you (yes, you personally), I believe your approach is far more disrespectful, disingenuous and egotistical, quite simply because I feel you tend to operate behind a mask of smug indifference even while making backhanded snipes (ie: "poking fun") at others. By never actually engaging earnestly in the debate itself, basically it appears your only real interest is in taking shots at someone... rather than an opinion they might put forward.

In other words, when you're too lazy to debate an opinion, but skip directly to sly ad hominem attacks, I feel that your heart is in entirely the wrong place.

Poor design is not always a purely subjective matter. Again, there are measures for such things, and points can be made for and against. There are a lot of hyperbolic statements made on Transformers forums, but arguing that a toy robot has a "bad design" is not necessarily an untenable position, especially if one is willing to engage in a discourse that clarifies the metric in use.

Hardly, when the prevailing climate is largely anti-intellectual. The internet is full of people ready to bark out an opinion, even one that denigrates others... but these are also the first to defend their opinion solely on the tenet that opinions are (supposedly) inherently sacrosanct.

Au contraire (french... because I'm elitist, y'know)... I am absolutely an overeducated, pathologically highbrow intellectual, but one who freely acknowledges my self-serious geeky love of toy robots. But I'm also the one with my feet dirty, fighting the nerdy fight... you're the self-styled pundit heckling from the gallery, quick to dismiss it all as "silly toy robots". I'm having fun... why aren't you?

As for taking me seriously... if I'm making a point about objectivity, the meaning of "opinion", and online protocol... that's the "serious" stuff, I guess. Whether it's about fun stuff like toy robots, or relevant stuff like the death of intellectualism and manipulation of public sensibility, the fundamentals are still the same. And as usual, you've gotten bogged down in arguing about how we argue, rather than just arguing about toy robots, as it should be... no wonder you're not having fun.

Politics is positively fun. That's why debating is a sport, sport.  

Coming from you, the guy who makes the rules, right?

We all have our personal preferences when it comes to toy robots... and some of us like to discuss the nuts and bolts of our toy robot preferences. Apparently others want to make the rules about whether we're allowed to discuss and argue our opinions about toy robots. What type are you?

Now you're getting it.  

Even if I think it's wrong, you SHOULD defend your opinion. Maybe along the way, one or both of us will be convinced by the other's opinion... depending on how well we advance it. From conflict comes growth or change. Life moves on. But first we should know whether we're arguing about my opposing opinions about Bayformers, or arguing about whether I'm allowed to voice those "opposing opinions" about Bayformers.

zmog

 

Heh, well we kinda got the last one with the "hook hands" Prime. Really, it shows how much of a Star Trek Mirror Universe the Bayformer-verse is when the once noble and self-sacrificing leader of the Autobots is now using weapons that guys like Freddy Krueger or Leatherface would use. I have always been a Con fan, but if anything the movie made me sympathize with them even more. There are few other movies (Kick/Ass was one example) where I started rooting for the bad guys, due to the good guys being even more brutal and merciless then them...)

I couldn't have put that better myself. I'd happily let the Bayformer fans have their own little universe, and occupy myself with stuff I like (Animated, Comics, WFC) if it wasn't for the fact that this was, most likely, my one and only chance to see TFs brought to the big screen, and I was appaled by the results. I would have never thought that when I was interviewed (as a major TF Fan in my country) by a Movie Review TV programme, I had to actually express my dislike of the new movies and show them comics and toys like MP Prime and Megs, as well as Binaltechs to show what realistic TFs should be like. (Funnily, they were all over the MP toys, even the cameramen loved them).

 

I might be interested in getting him just to complete you know having him haha

 

Yeah, this is exactly it. One might assume that a big-budget live-action Transformers movie (at least the first one) would have been a celebration of the designs and characters that started it all. Instead we got an extremely "liberal" adaptation that aggressively re-interpreted the fiction and style of the series to a radical degree. There's some interesting stuff there, amid all the flaws in the movies... but we're still left with Decepticons who look like a bunch of digitigrade knife demons, Autobots who are mostly unrecognizable, and a director who originally didn't even want to give any of the robots any dialogue.

Optimus, one of the more iconic-looking characters, reportedly had to be re-designed by Takara, after their designers were shocked at ILM's decidedly un-Convoy-like original version. Jazz, one of the few others that was immediately recognizable, received an unceremonious death in an absurd homage to the "black guy always dies first" cinematic cliche.

The ILM bots were undeniably impressive technical achievements, but it's perfectly understandable why many oldschool fans were heartbroken over the designs.

zmog

 

bug

i would buy it for the bug mode

 

Not bad, I may pick him up.

 

Uh, wasn't that a chinese artist taht yelled YOU GUYS ARE RUINING TRANSFORMERS THIS IS A SHAME TO ALL CHINESE TRANSFORMERS FANS LET ME DO OPTIMUS in the studio that designed his current design? As in literally, that's the story, dude yelled about Optimus at Bay's face.

 

Nope, it's from an interview with the Takara design team that was linked to us here at TFW2005 a while back. Not sure how to find the news item again, but I'll paraphrase...

Japanese project teams are always super-diplomatic and humble about what they say in interviews. Behind the scenes interviews for japanese movies and anime are the most boring things ever, because all anybody ever does is praise the director and dismiss their own contributions.

That said, it makes this anecdote even more interesting. Apparently during their design process, they were getting all the concept art from Dreamworks because the toys had to be ready far in advance of the movie's release. At one point, the Takara team was so shocked at how unrecognizable "Convoy" was that they actually built a physical mock-up out of spare parts around their studio of what they thought would be a more "iconic" design, and sent it to Dreamworks as a respectful suggestion for an alternative approach. The article had an accompanying photo of the mock-up they built and it looks pretty much like the final product seen in the movie.

Based on this story, I'm inclined to believe a bunch of Takara guys decided to take a stand for "Convoy", and so are responsible for "saving" Prime's design in the movies... which is great.  

EDIT:
Found a reference to it, translated from an interview posted on the Takaratomy website apparently.

zmog

 

Bumblebee certainly is - 'Chuckle'

 

Optimus has a thing for giving bad head (so to speak).. He hacks up Bonecrusher, Chops bits of Demolishors shoulders, and sticks hooks in Grindor's boat race and then again with the Fallen.

Twice is a Coincidence - that many times is a pattern of Behavior - he's got a fetish for it or something like Jedi have for Limb choppin'.

I don't know if that all he's done.. but it's obvously seen as a bit of a joke to Hasbro now that he does that or they wouldn't have mentioned it in Banzai-Tron's bio too.

--------------------------

[Edit - Additional]

I think the contention that fans automatically hate any new look Transformers have may be to much of a generalistion I can only speak personally on this but I think that there seemed to be a fan appeciation of Animated toys especially in America - but less appreciation from Fans Internationally who may have prefered more Classics toys.

Universe seemed more Popular outside America than Animated but intially at least Animated seemed more popular than Universe 2 in America.

Speaking personally I generally liked Beast Machines (Sonic Attack Drone remains one of my favorite DX Jets and the Cycle Drone is still probably my favorite scout/Basic toy) - the only real objection I had to it was minor issues such as color choices (Night Slash Cheetor, Blackarachnia and DX & Mega Optimus in Particular), lack or paint (such as on DX Optimus), and some Characters were poor representations of the Characters such as with Tankor and Nightscream. especially when this year also saw a price increase over Beast Wars.

I did object to the idea of making bigger toys out of what Hasbro thinks are the popular characters - so I object to the lack of a decent Silverbolt still - and object to Nightscream being so large. or the existance of Supreme Cheetor.

If Nightscream had been a DX or Scout and Silverbolt and Ultra and The Supreme had been Tankor - i'd have nearly no complaints at all.

I certainly seem to like Beast Machines more than many people seem to anyway even with those concerns - I'm a glass half full person on this line.... where as perhaps i'm a glass half empty on the Movie line and the Animated line.

To Many Bumblebee's is just getting on my nerves now.
We do not need 3 Premium Price Bumblebee toys in the space of 3 years... they should have left a gap of a year and made a premium price Optimus instead.

 

A repaint as a G1 insecticon (Kickback) could be interesting.

Maybe they will because they also made a G1 Beachcomber repaint out of Dune Runner.