I dont know where your getting this info...seeing as how you havent seen a frontal veiw of him transforming............

 

Movie trailer.

 

......That isnt his face your looking at.

I think you need to eat more carrots! Their good for eye sight  

 

Well, restrained and subtle cheating would be preferable to a whirlwind of bullshit, yes. Hm. I don't remember advocating a whirlwind of bullshit, but it's got a great ring to it.  

In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't some restrained and subtle cheating already at work in these designs.

Well, when I say "better" OF COURSE I mean more like what I'd like to see (though I suspect some of that is shared by many of the other people who disapprove of the movie designs).

Did you think I meant more like what you'd like to see? I hope at this stage in the debate, that we're far enough along to know that each of us is only putting forth our respective opinions... you know that your opinion is only that as well, right?

It's okay if you value your opinion more than mine though... I do, after all, value my opinions more than yours.  

Now that we have that obvious bit of business out of the way...

That depends. When you're making a tool, functionality is the most important aspect of design. When you're dealing with pure aesthetics... well... no. Looking "pretty" is mostly what a design is all about.

...in that by "pretty", we mean aesthetically pleasing for the material at hand. Obviously, "pretty" is fairly subjective. Ideally, you want a blend of the two elements, but in the end, I think "pretty" (read this as "cool" "iconic" "accessible" or whatever...) sums it up for the movies. But all the functionality in the world won't save a movie character design if it looks stupid.

(in this instance, I suppose "stupid" could be restated as "un-pretty in the eyes of most of the prospective audience")

Functionality is pretty relative in this case. These designs never had to BE functional. They only had to look somewhat functional AND be "pretty". So I guess they're halfway there.  

Sorry, someone else can do that. I've already given my thesis on what constitutes the "Traditional Transformers Aesthetic", long ago... look it up if nobody bites this time.

Plus, let's be fair... you know exactly what we're talking about. You're just looking for an argument you can try and dissect.

Again.  

zmog

 

You say who of the many others that dissaprove of the movie designs??? I guess mars isnt a fun place to grow up is it  ?

 

Okay... I will grant you that... I can't deny that the materials and execution of TFs have changed quite a bit over time. However there are threads that bind them together...

(to confirm, we're talking about inner Thunderwing, not his Pretender shell, I assume?)

One thing that has been a big influence on TF design is the process of animation. While G1 Jazz doesn't look much like G1 Thunderwing, looking at the animation models for both characters, a comparison could be made. Indeed, one of the defining qualities of later G1 TFs might be the that they started resembling animated TFs more. Granted they were still bricks and cheaply produced.

G1 Jazz and the other G1 Diaclone cars, however, do have a clear linear resemblance to Alternators. No accident there.

While later transformers in G1 seemed to incorporate fewer vehicle elements (due to the simplified blocky "folding out" transformation designs, leaving much of the vehicle on the backside), there are still some broad similarities...

- more adherence to humanoid form (this is particularly different in the movie Con designs)
- a geometric mechanical aesthetic
- faces, either humanoid or resembling helmets (ancient or modern)
- solid, closed forms
- minimal exposed mechanics
- recognizable hands (even if usually simplified into block fists)
- external weapons + accessories
- thick limbs, broad foot base

Naturally there are many exceptions to these traits, but overall, this is a pretty good starting point for creating an iconic "transformer". And while there have been other TF aesthetics that have emerged over time, I think that many fans are disappointed that the aesthetic used in the movie didn't make stronger use of more of these "iconic" traits.

zmog

 

OH SNAP!

Er, what?

If you're gonna burn me, at least try to make sense.  

zmog

 

You hit it right on, dude!

I know they have reasons for following the style they did, and I know what those reasons are. But I don't like the idea, and I disagree with the outcome and result.

Now that we've established that again, on with the debate!  

zmog

 

Hey look! We agree!  

The Citroen car is great and all, but it's actually not that attractive when you get up to it. In fact, some of the things I -don't- like about it are the same things I don't like about the movie-formers. This goes double for the second Citroen commercial (speed-skating spikey bionicle-former).

However, some of the things I do like about it are the classical touches... the big car chunks here and there... the door-wings... etc.

zmog

 

cant we all just get along.

hahahahaha you guys are all pretty funny and very opinionated. Lets watch the movie and see how it turns out shall we?

 

Well, if this debate is really to have a point, let's establish some things about why we're debating.

I argue for the designs, and defend the filmmakers in general, because I'm not only genuinely excited about seeing a fresh take on what I consider a classic story, but the idea that this movie is potintially going to bring about a resurgence in popularity that the franchise hasn't seen since the early/mid 80s makes me smile from ear-to-ear. Because, whether I (or any of us) personally like the film or not, it's success promises us another 20 years of the franchise. And, believe me, this film's success is not going to be decided by whether or not we all, as fans, like it, but by the general public's response to it.

What is it, exactly, you hope to accomplish by attacking the film and its design choices?

 

I love the vehicle mode!! One nitpick though, I just wish they had kept, or made something resembling his G-1 head and face like they did with Optimus.

 

Doesn't it though  

I figured as much, I just wish we could have a filter that would replace "better" with "more to my liking", so that it doesn't always sound like there's something the matter with the current designs    

Well really, their job isn't to just stand there and be pretty. They are a tool; a communications tool. Their job is to communicate a multitude of things about them as a race, and them as a character. The designs have to convey their origins, their faction, their personality, and their role within their faction. They also have to convey a strong sense of weight & size. Oh, and they have to be able to fight like hell, too. Once the design takes care of all that stuff, then you can start dealing with making it look pretty and working with purely aesthetic choices. "Pretty to look at" isn't going to always jive with all of those aspects. You could choose not to communicate those aspects, but I feel that would be a mistake on a designer's part, and result in a bad design, even if would be prettier; that would be putting form over function.

Thank you for putting it in words.

 

Here's how the general public is going to see those traits:

That's a huge reason why they can't use that sort of design for the movie.

 

I totally have to agree with you here. The design itself is very cool, I'm really liking the head. The thing is, Ironhide didn't have an animal like head in the G1 series, and to be honest, I don't know why the designers gave all the movie TF's animal like head designs. I mean, Ironhide looks like a bull, Brawl looks like a dog, Ratchet looks like a bore. Why????

I'm not saying I don't like the designs, but why the designers gave most of the TF's these animal like heads, is way beyond me. WAY.

 

Note: I like the new look for the site. Sometimes clean and simple is fun to have. Oh wait, that ties into the ongoing debate!

One thing that irks me is how a number of people come on here and reiterate Bay & Co.'s notion that the demands of a live-action film require radical change to visual style of the Transformers product. People are stating this as if it is proven fact, which it is not. If anything, I believe this to be a baseless assumption on the part of whoever made the decision to abandon the tradition design aesthetic for the Transformers.

Note: SMOG offered a decent list of features that can be found on a traditional-style Transformer, but I don't think it's necessary to define the traditional design aesthetic. It's a case of "You know it when you see it." The movie designs are, with few exceptions, devoid of anything that makes the robots recognizable as Transformers.

Everyone needs to remember that at or around the year 2000, there was an "80's Revival" of sorts that resulted in the resurrection of numerous 1980's cartoon and toy properties in comic books, animation, etc.. The Transformers are no exception, and I believe Hasbro's push to develop a Transformers live action film is related to the 80's revival, albeit true that we are at the tail-end of said craze. A live-action film does have the potential to revitalize the Transformers brand and advertise it to a vast audience.

I think this is where part of the problem lies between opposing camps. Anyone may feel free to correct me if I'm very mistaken. On one hand, we have Hasbro -- a toy company who wants a large audience to see and fall in love with its Transformers brand and subsequently spend lots of money on the toys that will be produced for decades to come. They produce a vehicle (cartoon, comic book, movie) that serves primarily as an advertisement for their product. I myself, and I would assume a number of others, became fans of the original 1980's cartoon and the characters in it. As a child, I admit my favorite characters were chosen simply by which I felt looked coolest. I was 4. I think it's ok for me to like Soundwave because he's a big, blue robot with a visor, faceplate and salt shaker on his shoulder (what my young mind perceived it to be). Over the years, there have been changes to characters, new characters, new stories, and there have always been toys to go along with them. While yes, there are exceptions, there has always been a visual constant that tied the entire 20+ year history of the Transformers together. That visual constant is the reason I loved Transformers in the first place, and it's the reason why I continue to love them today. When the live-action movie was announced, I was overjoyed. My mind started envisioning upgraded versions of the original characters (notably Optimus Prime) stomping around on a Cybertron battlefield with a black sky filled with lazer fire. I've never had a chance to see that imagery translated into live-action (or realistically-rendered CGI) before, and it seemed like it was finally going to happen. Then the movie designs were leaked, and said designs at best only vaguely resemble anything from the established Transformers brand. You already know my reaction.

Now, on the other hand we have Paramount, Steven Spielberg, and most notably Michael Bay & Company. Bay was approached to take charge of a Transformers live-action movie. As he even stated, he had to be convinced to take the job. Having worked in motion pictures for a long time, Bay undoubtedly has a certain level of expertise as far as film-making goes. When someone said the phrase "giant robots" to him, I would assume he immediately developed a mental image of what they meant. After beng convinced to take the job and make the movie, I believe that is when Mr. Bay received a box from Hasbro including some examples of what Transformers are. Bay's reaction seems to have been that these were children's toys and he doesn't want to make a toy movie. In order to create a Michael Bay style Summer Blockbuster, the robots have to be new and fresh, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before. Bay doesn't want to rehash an existing product -- he wants to create his own. He wants to make something unique and leave another mark on the film industry. In order to do this, the constraints placed on Bay (being forced to use fan favorite characters from the old cartoon and toy line) had to be bent and twisted. The robots would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up to match his mental image of what a giant robot should be, and what he believes audiences want to see. Obviously, a lot of Transformers fans are ok with what we've been shown. They welcome the radical change and have no problem letting go of the previous 20 years of Transformer tradition.

To be 100% honest, that seems like blashphemy to me. I'm all for crazy new robots on the big screen, but if you're going to call them THE Transformers, they should BE...THE Transformers. They need to look like them. They need to be instantly recognizable as the character they're supposed to be. When you bring up Ironhide to someone, they might say "Which one was he? Oh yeah, the red van. He was cool!" He's an established character (and I'm not going to listen to anyone bringing up Energon Ironhide, because his original name was Roadbuster and thus, he was a different character. Hasbro only used the name Ironhide to retain the copyright). At the VERY LEAST, Ironhide should be RED in the movie. A pickup truck? I can live with that, so long as he still looks like Ironhide in SOME fashion. As I said above, it's always been visual for me. It's all about how they look and HAVE looked. This new movie Ironhide... yeah, it has some cool design to it. As a new character for a new brand, I have nothing to complain about. As Transformers Autobot Ironhide, I have nothing but problems with the design. It's like creating a completely new style of car that nobody's ever seen before and saying "Yeah, that's a Ford station wagon." If it doesn't LOOK like a Ford station wagon, it's NOT. Likewise, if it doesn't LOOK like Ironhide, it's very simply NOT Ironhide. It's something else, entirely different. From the face, to the color, to the alt-mode, he's completely different. Some people have said that all that matters is that his personality is still intact. I disagree. If someone showed me a picture of a green-haired African guy with blue jeans and a machine gun and told me it was the new movie He-Man, I would never be able to accept it. That's how I view this Ironhide design, as well as the designs for Megatron, Starscream, Ratchet, Jazz, etc.. I have less of a problem with the new Decepticon characters like Barricade because they're not based off anyone we've ever seen before. Still, they don't look like Transformers to me, so I have trouble accepting them as such. Even then, however, why are there even cars on the Decepticon side? Originally, the Autobots were called that for a reason, but I guess the demands of a live-action movie dictate that we forget about that too.

 

Then you misunderstand the way Hollywood works. The movie we're getting now costs 125 million dollars with no stars and, some would say, not enough robot screen time. To make the movie you describe would cost way too much. Although it would be cool. And, understand I say this with all due respect, while it's not your job to understand Hollywood's business practices, your own unrealistic expectations are your problem. Not Bay's, Dreamworks, Hasbro's or anyone else's.

He had to be convinced because the preconceived notion of Transformers is a toyline. They convinced him that wasn't the movie they wanted him to make.

I'm sorry, but none of this is backed up by anything. This is your imagining of the situation based on your own emotional response to the film's progress so far. It's all worthless to the discussion at hand. I could just as easily describe a situation where Bay wanted desperately to make a shot for shot remake of "More Than Meets The Eye" and Hasbro wouldn't let him.

And this is exactly the way he should approach it.

Bay's got a track record of knowing what audiences want to see (The Island being the only notable contrary) and Transformers has a track record of being viewed as a kid's only property. I'd say if we're going to change that view, which is the only way this movie will be financially successful, he's got to be allowed to do his thing.

Here's the thing, though. We're not "letting it go". It's all still here. Bay's movie does not replace my G1 DVDs, toys or memories. It's just an opportunity to see something different. The great thing about change coming to the line is, by definition, it isn't permanent.

The Stunticons would like a word with you.

 

I'll take a break from DDR to respond to this. I didn't say the image in my mind had to be what the entire movie was about. As far as it costing too much, I disagree. Once the CGI models have been created, rendering action sequences isn't terribly difficult for someone who knows what they're doing. It's time-consuming, but that's about it. The scene I described above could be achieved by filming live settings in the desert or whatnot (I don't mind having dirt on Cybertron. Plus they could be fighting on the moon or something, as with many of the cartoons) the same way Disney did it with Dinosaurs. If you watch that film, it's easy to assume it's all CGI, but 90% of the backgrounds are filmed at actual locations.

That's why I said "I assume" and "I believe." I knew someone would jump on that, but you have to admit it's a pretty likely course of events. We do know they had Transformers Classics to work from, but they chose to go in a completely different direction.

Opinion.

I'm not just saying this to be argumentative, but I don't think there's ever been a Michael Bay film I've enjoyed. I rarely follow who directs which film, but going through the list on IMDB, I'm only seeing films I really couldn't stand (namely Armageddon, The Rock, and Bad Boys). People will spend money to see pretty much any big action movie during the Summer. It could be Transformers, or it could be anything else. As much as everyone seems to have hated the Star Wars prequels, the movies still made a LOT of money. Likewise, many Academy Award nominations go to films that didn't do well at the Box Office. I guess we're not seeing eye-to-eye on what makes a good movie. If the only goal is to sell tons of tickets, fine. Do whatever it takes to create a typical Summer Blockbuster that just happens to contain giant robots and just happens to be called Transformers. Chances are it won't be very good, though.

As far as this film is concerned, you have let it go. That's what I meant when I said that; giving up on the notion of seeing traditional Transformers on the big screen -- and actually trying to say they wouldn't work. As for a chance to see something different... If we want to see something different, why not just create a new franchise? This is something I wish some of you would try to understand. If it's different (radically different), it's no longer the same product -- and at least SOME of us consider that to be BAD.

The operative word in my statement was "Originally." We all know about the Stunticons and Aerialbots, but they weren't part of the group that crash-landed on Earth. They were created after the main characters travelled back to Cybertron if I'm not mistaken. The whole point to the story was that it was *unthinkable* to have flying Autobots and driving Decepticons. Needless to say, things have changed since then, but this new film is supposed to retell the original Human/Cybertronian encounter. Having a Decepticons police car doesn't make sense. Who knows, maybe they won't even say "Autobots" or "Decepticons" in the movie, because someone might think those terms are too cheesy.

 

But this is the crucial, center argument, and while you can at least admit that's at the center, a lot of people cant. And ultimately, we can argue it until we're blue in the face, but until we see how well the movie ends up, I see a lot of people getting heated up over something that's not worth it. At this point, it's mostly venting.

As long as you (And this is a general you) realise it's venting, hey, vent away. But nothing you say now is going to change things, and think about what you're going to say if the movie does OPPOSITE of what you're currently expecting. All the die hard supporters of either position are going to be feeling sheepish if their POV doesnt end up like they think it does.

And this is the EXACT same argument I saw when Beast Wars showed up. And then beast machines. And then the various japanese anime series that were brought over. What's COMPLETELY different to you is only a mild change to others. So why poison the well?
Additionally, remember that for some TF viewers, G1 was NOT their original experience with TFers. Why does your opinion on what is the 'correct' series to follow the only one to consider?

 

I wish you would try to understand how change works. G.I. Joe becoming 3 3/4 inch figures with a full cast of characters did not negate it from being a G.I. Joe product, even though before then he'd only been 12 inch generic army men. The Beast Wars didn't negate it being Transformers because they all turned into (at first) realistic looking animals, and this movie's design and approach to story won't negate it from being Transformers, either. It's still the same product, and no matter what you complain about, you won't stop that or change that.