Warning, the first ROTF character design?

No, look at it. It's still not realistic, not by a long shot. Still the same "stretchy" face, and he doesn't like he can do ANY common movements with his torso, for starters, or even cross his arms in front of his chest.

To make it able to move in a completely realistic manner without cheating, you'd basically have to fragment the metal more and more and more until you get... the movie aesthetic.

Last updated November 10th
(This update: 5 new TF Universe 2.0 toy reviews, 2 more of VBBN's toy reviews)

....


What the hell is that?! Take it off! Take it off! Aaaaaaaaaaagh!

Yes please I mean its 2009 not 1984 G1 is not transformers transformers is transformers is a HUGE universe that is not filled by JUST G1 so grow up and get use to this.

Possibly blurr as well though but the chevy volt is more appropriate.

I'm really digging the design, but it does seem to scream battle mode with the wheeled feet and face and weapons out.

I like what I like. I've never been a sheep of any kind. That being said, I'm going to have to concur with the fact the movie aesthetic just works for the type of movie they are making. This bot looks quite ready for a fight, and a highspeed one at that. He's perfect for chases as well going from bot to vehicle and back. This bot has high potential. Bonecrusher had wheeled feet in the first movie, and they still worked in real feet. Maybe non battle mode these just turn sideways, or feet fold out from behind the wheel. Especially if this truly is just the battle mode, which would explain no feet for normal standing. I hope they stick to the G1 s1-2 naming convention used so far though. Completely new bots would be cool too, but I don't see a reason to start tapping outside S1-2 bots besides Arcee or Kup or Ultra Magnus just yet. Next movie sure whatever. For now, let's continue to pay homage to the source material, for more lushness to tap in the rest. No need to rush things just yet character-wise.

My only main fear is this may end up as hot rod. Even though it's code named 'stinger' for now.

And who says Devastator was a mistake? We've had many instances in the past of gestalts being fused stuck, why must he not be devastator just because the toy says brawl? There's still room in the future sequels to give us what we want without retconning the first movie. Heck, they could even use what the first movie set up to create a new devastator still. The only limit to it is creativity, let these people do their jobs and flesh out this story before we start crying foul on all the aspects we think they did wrong. I don't even remember this much whining when Superion never seperated in DW, and then quickly died. Why's it so hard to accept that this 'devastator' may have been afflicted the same, and chose to reformat to a tank as a whole since he can't seperate and hasn't been able to from war damage for ages, among many more reasons that could be thought up. This would even explain his simplistic mentality in the movie. His head even bears a resemblence to G1 devastator only different colored and headtop shoved down. Granted as unintentional as it may have been, it really does work creatively for now, till they feel ready to tap it again later.

I personally prefer G1 names for now as it would give us nods to G1 as the war began, which could progressively grow out into more and more bots of various name origins. Beast wars bots should be avoided for the time being as well. Vehicon names could work, but I'd personally prefer it if they avoided AEC namings. We finally have robots that feel alive and real, let's not sully that by giving them the names of bots who were the most blocky and least life like movement in media. Not yet at least. Next movie sure. This movie let the war unfold with Prime and his old school compatriots in their new designs. Plus, it'd go great alongside universe on a shelf. G1 bot to movie bot to WWI Titanium if available, to even the old school mold.
Movie 3, they can go wild with the war and names easily as it escalates globally. For now, give respects to where respect is due, the media that started it all, in essence while not appearance. Even all the other series pay homage to it in the same manner, why shouldn't the movies as well? That's as much of standard between series as you can get. Even Animated nods G1 rather religeously albeit with new kick ass designs.

For Sale Thread
They've all gotta go!
Photobucket Madness.
Leeches kill shows, Fans Promote them. Which are you?

but it was the huge success (which continues) of G1 which keeps TFs universe alive. 90% of this community wouldn't be here if it was about beast wars or armada, EVERY other gen couldn't hold a match to the continuing success of G1. I mean, how obvious does it have to be? look who were the main characters and their alt modes in the movie.

Looks pretty G1 to me.

ACCEPTING ALL COMMISSIONS · CONTACT USING PRIVATE MESSAGING OR EMAIL

WIN A FRENZYRUMBLE.COM CUSTOM! CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

But that's just it isnt it. Bay wasn't going for this aesthetic. He wasn't trying to do G1 updates or anything. He was trying to make something all his own and no matter how much we attribute it to anything it will be different. Sure you can reverse engineer a G1 design into a movie design but it would never fit with Bay's look of TF's because they weren't ever meant to be G1. Prime's head, in concept photos, looked radically different than what we got for the final film and I would have been happy with it. For me it doesn't matter what a character looks like as long as they embody the character they are named after.


Ironhide was a black pickup truck in G1? We had a Blackout in G1? Since when was Ratchet Green? There are som many differences that it's obvious this is a new continuity. Why can't you just accept that? I know there may be references and homages to older characters but this is a new take on the series as a whole. G1 may have started this whole thing but if not for subsequent TF series lik BW Tf's wouldn't exist right now. It took a very far downturn near the end of G2 and came back in full force in the 90's with Beast Wars because it kept things fresh and new. Just like what the movie is doing now.

Edit*

Beastbox: Whether or not it's able to do so (which you haven't shown that he couldn't - btw), what does he NEED to cross his arms in a HUMAN fashion for? Tap his feet while looking at Starscream in a "you will clean that up right now mister" fashion?

It's not part of survival of the fittests.

Cutting up the pieces just means he would get stuck in his other arm while crossing his arms. ;P Very practical indeed. You wouldn't dare call movie aesthetics realistic, would you? O___o' Regardless, unless the metal would bend, NO movie bot could cross their arms either, because - you know - metal is not as flexible as flesh. It's a moot point.

If you had read my comments on my deviantart site, you had noticed I had not bothered with giving it a 'movie' head. If you want to talk skin however, it's fairly easy to come up with a different form of metal than plating. Look at the texture of your skin. Is THAT a solid sheet? Or is it in fact millions of small patches of skin? Can you even cope with the idea that you'd have millions of little plate materials instead? No, since it's quite obvious you didn't think of any such technology either. You just reasoned "doesn't fit my ideas and is thus impossible, because movie aesthetic is only viable option" and stuck with that. :/ Stop using induction, please and be a bit more open minded. Before you say anything - I AM openminded about the movie TFs, but they just don't do it for me because their design is impression driven, and not functional nor homage driven - where homage prevails over function only if it's irrelevant for function, but is driving because you'd want it as homaging as possible when you do have a choice. Argue what you will, but if I'm a GeeWhiner that doesn't compromise and just wants toys on screen, I wouldn't have opted for a completely scratch designed T-90 Russian tank Megatron, now would I?

Alternatively you could use materials that expand and contract through heat or electricity. They're even experimenting with and designing new aircraft WINGS on that flexible shapeshifting technology right now. If humans have it on that scale (and smaller) surely it shouldn't be a problem to Transformers. It's again a moot point. However, you could be sure they wouldn't come up with a face and helmet that would probably inflict more damage on themselves by stroking their chin (to use a gesture you think should be needed to be possible - seeing as arms crossing is a design driving requirement these days - surely stroking your chin is), then it would be functional. I'm personally in favour of using faceplate characters first and foremost though. Even though mouths should be possible.

Humanoid faces to me are only meaningful if they have a function. And they have: Either to befriend without alienating too much: Autobots. Or to deceive (try to blend in with the Autobots so it's hard to tell who's foe or not or just because there's stuff the humans have the cons want - to name just one reason): Decepticons. Human faces - on Earth - do have a function for Transformers. Having a face with serrated teeth hidden behind countless shards of random metal however, does not have a function. Ergo: it wouldn't be used. Faceplates or Shockwave/Whirl type heads would be far more logical for robots. Weirdo insectoid alien faces though, don't really have a function unless they went to Klendathu. But then they wouldn't be helicopters or cars.


You'd ALSO have noted that plating that overlaps CAN bend AND rotate. But you probably never heard of ancient armour that could do that either. Surely if Romans and Samurai could do things like that with their basic armour, giant robots could perfect it a bit more? note that I never said my redesign was perfect, where you seem to imply it couldn't even be developed further. It just shows how much lack of effort you're putting in your imagination. Most likely because it doesn't suit your argument if you would. Seems to go for Cory anyway.

Note that I'm NOT putting words in your mouth, nor distorting your texts. Your general 'lack of faith' in anything non-Movie aesthetic is quite obvious by your immediate dismissal and I've seen Cory do that a couple of times before. There's probably nothing that could convince you otherwise though because "shard aesthetic" is the new peanutbutter to so many people. I also enjoy the argument that everything but the movie robots look like humans designed them, as regardless of what they look like - they too were designed by humans... So again, a moot argument.


*cackle* >3

Why so serious, Shroobmaster? D:

If you honestly think anyone went to see Transformers because it's a Michael Bay film, you're giving him way too much credit. And I really don't think kids have forgotten about it already; I mean, you're still here complaining about it a year-and-a-half after its theatrical release, right?


You're not following. Bay's on-screen robot models don't need to be limited by what can be accomplished at the 6" scale, for $10, while minding child safety regulations. When Hasbro/Takara designs a robot, they have to work within those limitations. So inevitably, much of the "traditional aesthetic" you feel all other Transformers' series has is out of necessity. The robots look different in the movie partially because they must for believability reasons, and partially because they can.

You really think the ILM guys were worried about the toys when they put all the impossible-to-replicate detail into this? No. Bay & his team design for 30 foot robots on multi-million dollar budgets with adults in mind. Hasbro designs for six inch robots for five-year-olds that can turn a profit on ten bucks. That's why there's a aesthetic difference in design.

There where many changes in the movie and all the characters are changed or some are new and even g1 is my fav a couple have come VERY close to G1's sucess and last time I check beast wars won emmys g1 won sh** except fanboys I mean c'mon we got many other great stuff out there.