| Grimlock... *spits on ground* So done with this lizard. His head looks different. |

| Milne said he went with a Batman look (even the pointy ears), creeping in the shadows. Yes, that certainly fits Grimlock's character & design. ![]() The constant redesigns, just for the sake of doing a redesign, is getting tiresome. |
| You're taking his words WAY out of context. Milne's actual words were: |
| Taking words out of context is how people get super angry about nothing at all! Stop taking away their hobbies, you monster! Anyway, narratively it is ABOUT DAMN TIME Grimlock came back. That tease in LSotW nearly killed me. I also want to see someone other than Simon take on writing him in the comics. |

| The REAL question we should be asking is is this is really Grimlock? Or is it SPACE T-REX in disguise? |
| Milne said he went with a Batman look (even the pointy ears), creeping in the shadows. Yes, that certainly fits Grimlock's character & design. ![]() The constant redesigns, just for the sake of doing a redesign, is getting tiresome. |
| Actually, the only other time he wrote Grimlock it was a literal joke...he is taken out of commission for all of Eugenesis by the FIRST SHOT of an invading Quintesson armada. And that's after a bunch of bots basically dismiss him as overrated in-character. Of course in that story Springer was also a useless drug addict. |
| Milne said he went with a Batman look (even the pointy ears), creeping in the shadows. Yes, that certainly fits Grimlock's character & design. ![]() |


| Taking words out of context is how people get super angry about nothing at all! Stop taking away their hobbies, you monster! Anyway, narratively it is ABOUT DAMN TIME Grimlock came back. That tease in LSotW nearly killed me. I also want to see someone other than Simon take on writing him in the comics. |
| Was he on drugs during the whole Kup oneshot then too ? |
| Grimlock... *spits on ground* So done with this lizard. His head looks different. |
| The thing is about brand coherence though, is that it's not as important as it used to be. Back in the day, DC and Marvel were quite insistent on maintaining a house style, particularly with their very popular characters, such as Superman and Spider-Man. Jack Kirby's Superman was often edited, with Kirby's Superman face being deemed not being Superman-like for their liking, and they would call upon more traditional Superman artists such as Curt Swan or Murphy Anderson to draw over it. As for Spider-Man, artists often had to follow the look established by John Romita Jr for a long time, not just in the comic, but in media such as cartoons as well. These days, differing art looks is just a reason to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and to sell as much merchandise. The rule now is basically, if he's still recognizable enough under a diff look, it'll pass. Take a look at the multitude of Batman, Iron Man and Spider-Man toy variants we have. Don't tell me it's been bad for their brands. Heck just look at Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron and Starscream. |
| Actually, there's a difference between a different artistic take on a character and a complete redesign. As you mentioned before, each character comes with certain specific character specs that need to be recognized in order for the character to be identifiable. Sure, people had to follow Romita's (it was Sr. by the way) when it came to Spiderman, but these guidelines were open to artistic interpretation. When McFarlane began doing Spiderman he made a slimmer, more contorted Spiderman with more stylistic webbing and bigger eyes, but it was STILL SPIDERMAN! Same when Larsen did it, Bagley, and all the other artists that had a turn on the book. But when it's all said and done, they still had to respect the design of the character. You can be the new Iron Man artist, and you can have a new take on his armor, but these designs still have to be approved by the editors in order to have a cohesive continuity in terms of redesign and not confuse the viewer, but I fear the editors at IDW simply don't give a damn. It's like the artists are given free range to do their own take on the bots, even redesign them and not even hold any kind of design standard to hold up in continuity. That's why we can have Don Figueroa do a complete redesign/amalgamation between G-1 and bayformers in one issue, but then have Guido Guidi come in with a more blocky G-1 accurate take on them with different head and body molds the next issue with no explanation given. THAT'S what's getting old. It's ok to have your own take on the characters, but IDW needs to adhere to a single design standard and stick to it. |
| "Complete redesign" is subjective, I think. Do you think Hasbro doesn't sign off on each design and story arch? I think Bayformers have taken much greater liberties with the franchise. These comics still feel like G1 to me. A much more mature version of G1 of course, but G1. And I think that's the point, really. These characters were pretty one-dimensional back in the day, and would be incredibly boring to more mature readers if new facets of their personality weren't expanded upon and even added. |