I've been into Transformers for a little while, drifted away during the movie, but really got into them in the last few days when I picked up some older toys. I just don't personally understand at all why the movie was so popular. It's mainly the aesthetic. First off, it's not G1, fine, but there's no point calling a character "Ratchet" or "Ironhide" if they don't bear SOME resemblance like Jazz and Prime did. This goes for every generation. At least Animated Prowl bears some resemblance to the original - have black as a primary colour and a "metallic" colour(gold instead of silver), as well as the head Chevron. And "Prowl" is a much more generic name than "Ratchet" or "Ironhide". You cannot call a character STARSCREAM and make him look like that! I don't understand why people are all OH HURRR YOU BEEFED UP mY STARSCREAM THAT LOOKS AWESOME HE'S NOT A WHINY TRAITOR NOW. I don't think people get what made Starscream popular to begin with. Animated did a much better job of making him "powerful" without making him a ridiculous ape. Why does he need to be an ape? THIS IS OUR NEW STARSCREAM. But why? What was wrong with the old one? If you're making a movie of Transformers, doesn't it make sense to draw the most from the original, most popular series? Let's face it - it's not as if AEC was great, and where is the AEC influence, exactly? It's only taking from G1. If you're making a movie "Of" something, you shouldn't try to make something so "new" until you've done a proper movie first. There are so many people that were waiting all their lives to see an awesome Prime/Megs smash up, and they didn't quite get that(if only because Prime got his ass handed to him way too easily). Hollywood just doesn't tend to be good at "New" stuff. If they were, why all the comic book movies? Where is our new Star Wars? That clip on the Hasbro website impressed me more. And you'll always get people saying it LOOKS SO FAKE, but have you seen that developed into a Hollywood movie? News for you - THAT'S WHAT REAL ROBOTS LOOK LIKE. Real robots are never going to look like those overcomplicated scrapheaps, and CERTIANLY not giant robots. Nobody wants the G1 models made into 3D with a little bit more detail - we do want a bit of a redesign. But hell, they took it way too far. If any of you knew about Mecha animation, you'd know while they're pretty unfeasible in terms of efficieny, a lot of them are designed by actual engineers to make the most out of it. Macross was designed by an engineer, and a lot of the toys transform much more feasibly - and guess what? They transform a lot like Transformers. There probably needs to be a certain amount of "Super Transformation" like the movie uses, but come on, not for the whole robot. It breaks it up too much. This is what I'm getting at - the aesthetic. The movie bots were cool monsters. And heck, I like monstrous, techno-organic mechs, like that Transtech Soundwave drawing that's floating around. But they're enot even "organic" looking like Transtech or EVAs, they're metal things trying to move organically. I thought people wanted them to be more "alien"? So why are they more "human" shaped then ever, or taking traits from other earth creatures, like Starscream's ape and bird like features? For the "can't touch chest" problem - wouldn't it be a more "alien" solution to simply extend the arms? Ironhide really looks like a scrapheap. Personally, I just think his design is very messy. There are cool aspects to it, certainly, and I quite liked my FAB Ironhide toy for a while - but you can't figure out where his limbs are. This just isn't what Giant robots look like! I don't understand the crowd of people that dislike animated but like the movie, as small a crowd as they are. Conversely, I don't understand the larger crowd that like the movie and animated just as much - aren't they kind of diametic opposites? but at the same time, animated is more "Giant Robot like". Would a Gundam movie look like giant toys battling it out to you? Why do you need everything made all creepy and overcomplicated just so you can admit to liking to see it on the big screen? I don't want to bash anyone for their taste - not in the slightest. It's just that some of the defenses in particular that caused me to leave the fandom for nearly a year, I still see them, and they still bother me. Like what you want to like, but don't defend decisions on the basis of them being more "realistic" - it's not true. There is nothing more immature than disregarding a position because it's "hatin'". I just don't see how so many people who WERE a fan of one aesthetic can suddenly become a fan of a completely differnet one and act like it had nothing to do with hype or peer pressure from other fans. I think a lot of people tried too hard to like it. But if you genuinely liked it, that's you're thing. Just don't push others into doing so. I won't push you into hating it, but I will open up the possibility it made you think you enjoyed it more than you did(which is the whole purpose of the Hype machine). I know this has been done to death but I think the exact problems with the aesthetic and people's defense thereof needed to be clarified. A Transformers movie. Hopefully after the Macross movie it will look ridiculous and they'll have to change it. The TF movie did well because nobody was able to visualise what high quality CGI(in terms of technology, not design)giant robots would look like in real life before it, it was a first. It was impossible for it not to do well. But when people see Iron Man, or Macross, and see how robots(or power suits that look like robots) should look, I think a lot of other people will see things this way.