I honestly don't know anyone who wants 1984 designs for the Bayformers, but I wanted better ones then what we've been shown. IMO a lot of the G1 of characters had good, solid designs, with personality. A lot of the movie ones strike me as over the top mech-things, and not really Autobots or Decepticons. If the design team had made more of an effort to have the movie characters resemble the characters they're named after, (except for Optimus of course) I think that would have been better. I'm all for updating the characters, but not if it's done the way it has.

 

I don't hate the movie, but I hate these threads. The same fucking question over and over and over again.

This is life... some people hate something, while some love it, and some just don't give a shit. What I don't understand is why don't people understand this, and just move on with their lives. I know personal taste is a really hard concept for most to understand for the internet...oh well time to go get off work I'll bitch about this later.

 

Well even though my opinion is only one of the many thousands on the boards. I dont mind the designs, the toys not being like their g1 counterparts. It doesnt concern me because I want a good story. If I dont get that then the movie is as good as for action scenes Nuff said.

 

I'm not a huge Transformer fan, but I have seen all the episodes of G1... Personally the cartoon didn't have any continuity (hello didn't each Decepticon have an ability that was only exploited in Heavy Metal War, and why did Prime and Megs only use an energy Axe and Morningstar in one episode.)

This movie has wayyyyyy more story then the cartoon did imo. The chemistry between humans is better in the movie then in the cartoon, and even the robots. My friend said it best, the old cartoon was basically a half hour commercial to advertise the toys, and he is a HUGE Transformer fan, and even he can admit that.

People are right though, when they say you cannot please everyone. Sure diehard G1 fans aren't going to get used to it, or be mad, but that's their problem and no one elses, and they should be allowed to feel how they wish.

I however, would like to say a few things about this movie.

- It made me a Transformer fan (so far just the movie though.)
- Had it only been about robots, I would never watch another MIchael Bay film again, as he does good humor and action, when it comes to humans.
- I've actually put 236 dollars into Hasbros coffers, helping Transfans get more out of Hasbro in the long run, by actually buying Transformer movie stuff (all Leaders, Deluxes, Voyagers, 2 DS games, 1 PSP game.)

I think he got a ton of stuff right with this movie, however that's my own opinion. I hated the old cartoon because I felt fans had to put story where there was little (I remember my friend told me how people on the net made up mythos about Cybertron being a god, and lo and behold in Cybertron cartoon he is. Fans made the story what it is today.)

-X-

 

Your friend is incorrect; the concept of Cybertron being the living form of Primus, the Transformer god, dates back to the Marvel G1 comics (Simon Furman, UK Marvel G1 #150). It's official G1 canon.

 

I was gonna shut this issue down myself but you're God to me right now. Thanks for saving me the trouble. People need to GET OVER THEIR PERSONAL MEMORIES. As an aspiring writer and adaptation study, I wouldn't want my creativity limited by hardcore purist.

 

The reason why I can be concerned with the movie still is that I've been playing the DS game and some of the story and relationship choices make me cringe. I also think the designs could be much better and more fitting for the characters. The voice actors in the DS game also left me a little worried b/c some of the voices don't quite match what I'd have expected (like a large character should have a commanding/big voice instead of a weak/quite sounding voice). The heads really aren't Transformers heads to me. The bodies look very vulnerable where as older designs from G1 all the way through Cybertron look like they can take a few hits and keep moving. Ultimately, I just think the movie could have been handled much better than it is and I'm hoping that Michael Bay is given zero influence on designs for the 2nd and 3rd movie (Designs set the personality of a character, so giving them certain features b/c you want to may not work with the character's personality).

That's just my opinion. That's why I can be worried. I've seen other designs that would have worked much better for the movie than the designs that are there in my opinion. I'm not a "Only G1" fan, I'm a Transfan and to me, these aren't the best Transformers I've seen that would work for the Big Screen. I liked Beast Wars, but I don't like this.

And I'm very tired of seeing anyone who thinks the movie designs aren't that good being called a G1 purist or some other similar thing just to try to discredit them. Some people just don't like the designs just b/c the designs aren't appealing to them.

 

I don't need to discredit a group of people who run movies into the ground before they see it.

You're an intelligent guy, so I have no beef with you. You're worried the movie's bad; okay. There are adults on here that are, for whatever reason, putting their childhood memories in the hands of Mike Bay. His directorial skills are debatable, but if some these guys take his decisions into some personal attack that's their problem.

This is the business, adaptations are supposed to stray from source material on the count that certain aspects of the previous genre won't work in the new one. Yes - comic books have alot of characters and story, but comic book games shouldn't all be RPGs. Yes Resident Evil featured certain characters, but a movie does not have to follow an iffy story even by game standards. Adaptation isn't easy, but it isn't science either. It's not as easy as 'read the comic/watch the tv show/play the game and film it'.

 

While I'm not crazy about some of the designs either, I still don't understand why with all the recent magazine/ online explanations as to why the Transformers were designed the way they were, people still believe that not only is Micheal Bay responsible for the designs (he's a director, not a CGI artist; that's where ILM comes in!) but that the transformers could look still look like Transformers. Does anyone here know what Animae Magic is? Once again. Animae magic is a coin term to describe the "morphing" of robot to vehicle and back. It is used all the time in animae, from Macross to Transformers and it has not changed. Put the transformation sequence of any mecha or robot in slo mo and arms, legs, head and other parts simply disappear or mold T2 style to their Alt mode and vise versa. I work doing graphics, and the first thing you learn in that field is what works in 2D DOES NOT work in 3D. The Transformers (designed by ILM who have been doing their bit on robot effects for twenty years and are pioneers in their field) designed the basic mechanics of the Transformers out of necessity and not just because they felt like it. The Mass shifting ( which leaves a lot of "exposed" parts) was NECESSARY in order to equalize certain charater's sizes. For Example:
Starscream is an F-22 which is easily 2.5 to 3 times the size of Prime's truck. (See the comparison photos out there on the web) To match sizes; Primes transformation spreads the truck parts outward, where the Starscream's transformation has far less spread and part of the reason his build is much more squat to prevent him from being larger than Prime. Because it would be nothing short of laughable if Prime, most heroic and amongst the most powerful Autobots would have to duke it out David and Goliath style against 'Screamer who apparently is a coward despite being twice as big as Optimus! The one Autobot, Jazz, whose transformation and appearance is the closest to a 2D Animated Transformer, and has the least amount of "mass shifting and spreading", also happens to be, and by no accident, the smallest Transformer second only to Frenzy! Check the photos and the game pics. That's right! It just may be Bumblebee's bigger! Also the mass of thousands of moving parts will account for the tiny details in the transformations, That's why even Prime's head Transforms! In 2D, you can cheat and just have it disappear. In 3D, when you cheat, IT SHOWS.

Secondly, the designs! Folks keep coming up complaining over and over about the Alien/ insect combo appearance of the Transformers especially the Decepticons! Again while I'm not crazy for a lot of them, there is a reason for them being designed this way. First of all: They're aliens. What better way to give the transformers the appearance that they're "...Super Advanced Robots from Japan" than to design them in such a way as to look like they could never be built by Human hands. Plus, the slimmer designs sans kibble allows the transformers to achieve any pose! As for the Insectic...oops  I mean Decepticons, ILM has done with them what NO cartoon has EVER done ... made the 'Cons look MENACING!   If all the Alien flicks have ever taught anyone doing "creature F/X and design" is the more Insect the alien looks, the more frightening and "alien" the creatures will look to the audience. All the eccess bulk and armor and sharper Knobs on the Klingon's foreheads has not helped them be any more frightening that a bunch of Huns from outer space. The lobster heads in Galaxy Quest were much more menacing: and it was a spoof.

Thirdly, Give ILM a break. This is a groundbreaking first in Sci-Fi and visual effects. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE does it better than ILM. I am more than certain the designs will largely improve by the sequels. Look at Jurassic Park 1 and 2 the design software showed marked improvement on the dinosaurs. Look at Star Wars episode one and two and the opening sequence in Episode three! Mass improvement. Check this out! ILM had to actually write/ create their own software for the CGI effects in Episode 1!  (Didn't I mention they were pioneers). This is a special effects first! Giant transforming robots that look real. Could they have made "better" designs. Shockingly, for what they were looking for and needed to do... the answer is... NO! This is a first for ILM. Give it time and I'm sure the the Transformers will look "better".

I have posted this explanation more than once. Hopefully, someone will quote this page every time someone comes up and says, "Why don't they look like Transformers", even though the simplest explanation would be that every franchise needs a reboot to stand the test of time and Transformers is no exception: let G1 to Beast Wars speak for itself.

Once again: We are FINALLY getting a movie! Sit back and enjoy the ride! All the girly-men need to stop crying,  and hit the Gym!

 

OMFG! EPIC POST! I was also 100% sold with the CGI and designs, now I'm like 150%

I completely agree. And yes, I like that the Decepticons actually look menacing for once. Megatron is supposed to be one of the most sinister, ruthless, and powerful beings in the Universe. His design fits him perfectly. It looks somewhat like Alien, but he looks big bulky and terrifying like an evil leader should. The glow in his eyes, his teeth, his twisted metal, his huge stature, he just looks like something truly menacing.

The other Decepticons don't look bad either. They are look terrifying (except for that 4 foot tall bastard). And to contrast, the Autobots all have more friendly appearances, and a wider range of facial expression.

But most importantly, it's the actions that will define them, not their appearances. But they should compliment each other, and by god, they do.

Edit: Not to mention the alt modes are a lot more useful. A Cybertronian jet is about 100 times more useful than a frickin' gun.

 

Ok here's my take on the subject. Transformers has undergone many changes throughout the years. In fact, ever since Beast Wars to RID to Armada, etc, some of them have become completely unrecognizable. So how is that different with the movie?

Remember Robots in Disguise (RID)? aka Car Robots aka Transformers 2000. Keyword being 2000. Well this is Transformers 2007. Same kinda thing.

I love G1 but it just would look "off" if it were translated to film in 2007. There are way more cooler and sleeker looking cars now. So why do we need to bring 1984's cars to a 2007 movie? They would look so outdated.

I back Michael Bay up 100% on this one. Why is Megatron not a gun? Because it would look ridiculous but most importantly because of the script. And plus that alien jet looks freaking cool as hell.

I'll confess that I thought Michael Bay didn't know what he was doing when I saw those first designs but then after I saw the trailers and more and more photos started showing up, I realized that he had a vision. He knew exactly what he wanted and like he said before, he didn't want a "40 foot transforming box"

This movie looks awesome because of the ILM work and of course the robot action.