I was just watching the Ironman trailer. I noticed that his robotic design was quite simple, yet still elegant and almost cartoony... Yet still realistic looking! Although I do like the new designs for the Transformers and never really questioned them as much as most (it was more wait and see for me) I do think that Bays claim that simplifying them would make them too unrealistic is proven completely wrong by the simplistic and wonderful design of the new Ironman ... this whole post of course hinges on whether you like the Ironman design or not. Anyways... I can easily see a car hood as a chest. It could still fold in so the model can move alright, but at least LOOK like it WAS at SOME POINT an actual car chest before folding...! I can see recognizable car parts on a robot with robotic bits close to Iron Man in terms of simplicity working just fine. It's really all in the execution and what you want to contrast it with... That execution was never given a chance though. Could that be because Bay is extremely bombastic and overbearing? I don't know, I don't know him, but I would have liked to see the results of that design attempt... I do know, that Ironmans robotic design, mixed with car designs, would be pretty complementary if executed right. Contrast car parts with extremely techy all over the place alien tech and of course it would look weird! So simplify the alien tech a little similar to Ironman! I'm sure the animators responsible for the 1 million moving parts on some of those models wouldn't complain. =P Makes me wonder what could have been! Anyways,... Just a thought... I'm not trying to prove anything, just food for thought, in the catagory of; "what could have been." As a disclaimer, I will state I generally have a position of neutrality in regard to the movies design issues and I know people may react both negatively and positively to this post, hopefully I don't offend anyone! Lastly, I accept the fact that this could be a totally stank idea! I'm more or less just posting this because I would have loved to see some executed examples similar to what I said above so I could at least decide whether it would work or not based on experience rather than just picturing it in my mind and having to guess all the time! =P
At the end of the day, Iron Man is still just a guy in a suit. And as a guy in a suit, he doesn't need to turn inside out, spin around and fold in half to become a camaro. As it is, Iron Man's design has changed since its creation to be a more segmented, more realistic design than it started out as. and the TF designs explode into a million pieces far less than some people think. Watch Blackout's transformation in the beginning, and you'll see his whole cockpit basically stays untouched. The same with Bumblebee's hood, and Ironhide's shoulder parts.
the 'too unrealistic' claim is absolute horseshit and an excuse to let the CGI technicians have a party and not go back on a look already formulated. I'd ask bay what was his reference point for 'realistic', maybe something found at roswell!!! id also suggest that the extreme elaborations of the designs actually masks flaws in animation/'realism'. Overall i liked the movie and found the animation and designs acceptable for what they were, a change of look for TF and thats fine but i hate it when peole start making ridiculous rationalisations for what are to my mind subpar artistic designs, i find the movie designs actually ugly, its a simple gut reaction. like xformermike i am neutral on the movie designs in terms of them being a new look for the film, im just not going to get excited over them either way, it would only bother me if the spawn look ifluenced all futer Tf designs/toys, which obviously it hasnt (classics/animated). anyway i dont think im contradicting myself by saying that i dont like the movie designs but 'emotionally' im neutral about them in the context of the movie franchise.
Sso02V : Sorry, I wasn't totally clear I guess. I don't mean use Ironman as a template and add car parts onto it.... I mean use Ironman's simplicity as a design style in the transformers design. I would be interested just to see what it would look like or how it would be executed! This also isn't really about Ironmans evolution in design... moreso just his most current one... those simple parts you mentioned by the way, are easily what made those designs work for me... without them they wouldn't have looked like transformers to me...
i suppose every artform reaches its optimal point. the same happens for toylines, and yes i'd say some toy lines are art. takaras microman line in the 70's (which gave rise to the megatron toy etc) has fantastic designs that blended futuristic/contemporary for the 70's/classical looks into a minimal tiny well constructed toy, a single figure could simultaneously have flared trousers, an egyptian theme and a 'still' futuristic silver head/android look all rolled into one. the baddies were rather strange die cast/plastic figures with very simplistic etched looking robot designs. the line variously evolved and the last 5 years has seen some nice toys but they have become over elaborate (shocker) and virtually unplayable due to their fiddly nature. the heman line another case in point, id say that the original toys from the 80's were rather shitty but had good character ideas, and id argue that the recent reincarnations from the four horsemen with more elaboration are way better than their predecessors. anyway, whre does that leave TF? well id say the early ex microman and diaclone stuff is amazing and i'll fast forward to the new millennium and say that i reckon animated is the first time ive seen TF that are as good, in a different way.............
Xformermike ... one of the things I found interesting about the movie bots is how complex their articulation was. From an engineering perspective such complex articulation is terribly weak and the old cartoon TFs would be, given their comparable levels of function, arguably more advanced machines. For my own part, in my fanfics, I actually had already put "complex articulation" for the reason that Cybertronians didn't just become Transformers over night once they understood that transforming was possible (from G1 Episode 3's time travel romp). Really, though they are often a bit too-cartoony, I much prefer the new animated TFs (that and it will be nice when Decepticons start showing up: I want to see Blitzving and Ahnold sue each other for trademark infringement).
The only problem is, Ironman and Tfs are two COMNPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Ironman is a man in a suit, so it's not that hard to make him LOOK like a man in a suit. THAT'S A GOOD THING. Transformers are ROBOTS. If they used the G1 designs, they wouldn't look like ROBOTS, they would look like guys in suits. THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. The movie designs were engineered specificaly to get around that man in a suit look, something they did very well. Ironman is human. TFs are not, so they have to show that somehow, and the designs chosen look good and make that point. Besides, the G1 cartoon robots sucked and would look like crap on the big screen, these designs rock and look awesome. It's not rocket science.
The theory that the designs looked that way to make the bots more realistic was debunked months before it came out. It was always a stylistic decision. They wanted detailed, agile-looking robots.
If they tried a more simple design then the Transformers might look like this: But then it's own Generation, not just a remake of Generation One.
Um....wait a minute dude. Are you forgetting about Optimus? Optimus was pretty darn close to his G1 counterpart, sans the extra body armer. Same thing goes for Jazz, (except when his visor wasn't down he looked like a creepy gremlin thing). So at the very least those two were based heavily on their G1 selves, so then what are you talking about? I think you need to go to rocket science school. My biggest problem comparing Ironman with Transformers is that right of the bat you see Ironman on the big screen, you know that without a doubt it's Ironman. You see Megatron on the big screen on the big screen and you know you're looking at Mecha Swampthing......er......I mean.....You're looking at something, but you don't know what. If I have any problems with comparing the two movies it's that they made Ironman look like Ironman, they made most the TF cast look like hideous wrecks. Plus you'd never recognize them out side of the Transformers title.
That's not entirely fair. Ironman is supposed to be the Ironman from the comic. Some tweks here and there I'm sure, most likely in the origin (can't say for sure, don't know anything about Ironman), but the same one nonetheless. With Transformers, although there are many nods, and recognisable features at least amongst the Autobots, it's a whole new continuity, a reimagining, a whole new different Megatron. And we know it's Megatron because we're told pretty much right away.
I agree. I personally don't think it would have been as good if the bots were designed like their G1 counterparts. I would rather have them look like alien robots than just some guys in costumes made out of cardboard boxes. In the end there's no use in complaining about it any more (imo at least). The movie has been made, and there's no way back now. It's also not the end of the world, as it's just a movie, which is getting at least one, if not two sequels to it.
Oh ok so you had to be TOLD it was Megatron instead of figuring it out for yourself? When I first saw movie 'Megatron' my first reaction was WTF is it? A little recognizability doesn't hurt. It looks like you just proved my point for me.
I'd have to say, even without being told, I'd probably assume that the big silver evil robot was Megatron. It's not like we're talking about complete and utter strangers to the brand recognizing him, since I doubt most peoples grandmas could recognize Iron Man either.
Yeah, it's pretty tough to mistake Megs. Devastator and the other "new" characters yeah, but guys like BB, Prime, SS, Megs and even Ratchet were givens. (IH not so much, but he retained some of his character)
I guess when you saw Armada for the first time, and saw the green guy with the huge antlers, you immediately recognised old gray buckethead Megs. Of course you had to be told. It's a new Megatron. It's not supposed to be the same one. It's that difference with Ironman that is the point.
This discussion is so outdated. Whatever the case, the designs are great and the movie will win an Oscar for its effects.
It's been a few years but actually I made the connection with G2 Megatron. He had elements of that Megatron; bad ass tank, and large cannon. That was my connection. As I said before with movie Megatron, I didn't know what the hell I was looking at. All of the other Megatrons have at least one element which says to me 'Megatron'. Movie Megs looks like every anime monster I have ever seen. But anyway, I think we're getting into semantics at this point.
OK you're taking me a little tooooooo literally. Basically all I'm saying is that Megatron look really generic. As if the character designers had no original concept on what a movie version of Megatron should look like, and they just ripped him off of Evangelion or something. Anyway I am out. I keep coming back to this thread, and I think that's a sign of extreme boredom, I need some activity.
