Agreed.

 

I don't know if "Morphing" is as cheatish with the Beast generaton, since they're partially organic, and you can't extend organic skins, etc. to "snap" into place. Beast Machines were made out of something that wasn't quite organic or "technological"(I love the way they treat technology as if it's some kind of chemical), but I'm sure they were able to exchange properties somewhat before that, just not to the same drastic extent.

 

Truer words were never spoken. Especially when up against tight deadlines.

 

Somebody has the temerity to accuse me of 'flip-flopping' and they get the two-fingered salute and an over-whelming urge for me to break something! Find proof of conflicting statements from the same person first, or retract a statement that's tantamount to saying movie supporters have no integrity. As the great Harry Hill said: "we can all make stuff up to sound clever".

Hoots, I'm mighty pissed off right now.

 

And yet here you are, in the thick of things, lobbing from the peanut gallery just like me. Pot. Kettle. Black. Try not to act like you're too far above it, eh?

Though I do consider myself a little bit pathetic for even just peeking into the Movie Discussion forum out of morbid curiosity.  

"Apologist" I grant you is loaded. I didn't use it, but it's still a good word, so why not? Do we have to pretend to agree with everyone? "Flip Flop" is a bit of a jibe... I'll cop to it. I think there's some retroactive continuity happening in some of these discussions. Heh.

But now "Bayformer" is somehow a denigrative term? I mean, really? The new distinct style of Transformer introduced in the Michael Bay blockbuster version of Transformers. Hence... "Bay-Former". "MovieFormer" or "ILMformer" would also be acceptable shorthand, but Bayformer has a better ring to it I think.

I think our list of forbidden offensive words is getting a bit too long... but maybe you can add "pathetic" to the list while you're at it.  

zmog

 

I'm a long way above the kind of twat that spouts drivel like "flip-flop", or calls people apologists.

 

Whoa... hold your horses, son. I never accused you of flip-flopping, though let's be fair. It's hardly a dirty word (unless we're talking politics, and even then, that's pretty silly). At least I didn't call you "pathetic" right?

I don't think I'm making stuff up when I point out that a lot of people were at one point some time ago, making a big deal about how the ILMformers were inherently better than the alternatives because they wouldn't have to "cheat" like anything more traditional in style would.

There was a lot of debating back and forth on this, and lots of folks threw in their 2 cents. However, now that we're getting a better look at these Movieformers, we're beginning to see that there might... just maybe... be some cheating in there... and that possibly these new designs might ALSO have issues with kibble, articulation, visibility, etc...

And now some folks are saying "Well, they ALL cheat, don't they?" and "Some cheating is necessary" and "it's okay as long as they maintain an illusion of not-cheating" (which I thought was kind of the point of cheating in the first place). I don't know if those are the same people who were singing the praises of the perfect non-cheating Dreamworksformers of yesterday, so I don't rightly know if there was really any flip-flopping. But it does seem like there has been a prevailing revision of attitude...

I mean, whatever... I'm not on a witch-hunt. I'm not going to pore over weblogs and old threads just so I can dredge up old inconsistencies. That's more time than any of us need to spend on this. After all, if anyone really is flip-floppin-- er... modifying their opinion based on new information (hey, that's a good thing, right?), I'm sure they know who they are.  

zmog

 

  Yes, I am Spanbauer on the official boards and the Don Murphy boards. And thank you!  

 

Right. Ok. Yessir. Nothing about your statement contradicts the spirit of your statement. At all.  

BAD
-----------
"movie apologist"
"flip-flop"

GOOD
-----------
"pathetic"
"drivel"
"twat" (!)

Spare me the ire and please chill out before you burst a blood vessel or something. I guess I hit an exposed nerve, and I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

I'm going to play with my toys now. Whee!

zmog

 

Depends on the context. I only use Bayformer to state that it's a liveaction TF, same way as I call the BW bots "Beasties", and the AEC bots "animeformers". Others use Bayformers in the same way as TINO though (Transformers In Name Only, such a clever ripoff from GINO...), and that's what get 'lovers' riled up.

 

I don't see what's wrong with "Bayformers". We say "Beastformers". We can't really say "Movieformers", it's not catchy, and it's too ambiguous, it could mean the '86 movie which in of itself brought in a new style of Transformer; new moulds and designs not based on Diaclone, Microman or any Japanese transforming mech.

 

I have a much better idea.
*hits "ignore"*
Ah. Much better.  

It's the context it's used in; too many people use "Bayformers" as a derogatory term for me to see it as a positive one.

 

You use apologetics. You are an apologist.

I can't even figure out why you keep picking fights with me. WE BOTH AGREE THAT THE MOVIE DESIGNS ARE GOOD.

 

You didnt read my post, and if you did, you sure as hell didnt understand it.

as I said before, interiors TRANSFORM. they do this on Alternator Smokescreen, it turns into other body parts. even the seats. They do this with Alternator Sideswipe. it transforms, compresses, and it is completely hidden in the robot mode.

 

Yeah,that's what I mean... some people are bringing their baggage to this airport. "Bayformers" means "Michael Bay's Transformers"... some people like his take on Transformers, others do not. It still means the same thing though.

Some folks freak out at even the -suggestion- of negativity towards these designs, but the moniker at least is pretty neutral. Anything else someone else reads into that is their own problem. Honestly, I'd forgotten how hair-trigger and volatile the scene can be on these movie-related boards. It's like basic human perspective and impulse-restraint has been lost.

I would have thought that vibe would have blown over by now... heck, even a "hater" like me is starting to get jazzed up for the movie, after months of exposure to the new designs have dulled my initial disappointment. I mean, I'm still sad I'll probably never get to see big-budget "classic" TFs on the silver screen, but I do own most of the movie toys so far, and that last trailer was sweee-eeet!  

*relief*

I think I'll get over it.  

zmog

 

I know this, man...
On Alt Skids, you can see the seats fold up on the back of his legs.
Alt Meister/Jazz, they are his torso.
Alt Ravage, they become his torso as well...

I'm saying about the FILM robots. Where do their interiors go?
There is no trace of them whatsoever. And what I can see of the non-car identifiable parts, nothing looks like a non-metallic substance.

 

Yea that's probebly how it's going to hapen. Slow transformations so the animators can show off, and fast ones to save time.

 

Wiat? How do you consider these examples cheating? For 2D transformations they're not that bad. It's not like they're completly morphing or anything. You should find one of the really bad transformations where the guy practically blobs into vehicle mode. I saw Cyclonus do it once. Now that's cheating.

 

oh man, this thread.

this sub forum is like in that movie where sam jackson, hoffman and sharon stone are trapped in that sub and try to kill each other. whatsitcall?

ah, the sphere.

 

y'know what? how abt in g1 where a walkman and a pistol TRANSFORM INTO HUGE ROBOTS?!! zomg cheetors!