Me Gimlock Have Tiny Head Now!

 

Yea I don't see why people think these movies are based on G1. They borrow elements from G1 but they also borrow elements from other transformer continuities. I mean this isn't the first time grimlock is green. Other continuities change characters all the time and no one bats an eye but Bay slightly changes a character and everyone loses their heads

 

I think that people take these movies way to seriously, people should just be happy that Grimlock is a t-rex they could easily made him a construction vehicle like they did in RID.

 

I know right.

 

Yay, the same TV spot but with better VFX!

Anyway, the shot with Grimlock looks like it was zoomed-out from my POV. It should compensate on a big screen.

 

Looks to me like they edited the shot with Optimus riding Grimlock at a weird time. Perhaps he's meant to turn his head to the side (like in the original shot) and let out a big roar or something (like in the poster).

 

Theirs a fine line between being faithful to the source material and what tends to be occurring in the movie series. Sure those wanting an exact copy of G1 Grimlock are going to be disappointed - however expecting a movie version that is similar or an improvement upon the basic character is to be expected.

Take characters like Optimus, Bumblebee, Ratchet or Jazz. They had fairly faithful adaptions to the big screen being modernised versions of their original counterparts.

In terms of the movie-verse having a Dinobot that doesn't accurately reflect real Dinosaurs will result in some fan outrage - especially in the case of Strafe/Swoop/Two-headed Pteranodon and Grimlock... I mean... how hard is it to make Grimlock look like a real life T-Rex? He's effectively had one alt-mode throughout his entire run with minor variations that still make his alt-mode plausible and its always been a T-Rex... I just don't see how they are going to justify the changes when the opening apparently includes the Dinobots getting the alt-modes via scanning REAL dinosaurs...

Yeah - just doesn't make sense to me. Its a minor nitpick but just something that makes me question the scene - kind of like when Jetfire was all broken in robot mode and parts were falling off, making me question whether these parts were necessary or what parts were missing.

I understand your point - just wondering why they are focusing on improving the original spot rather than surprising us all with a new TV spot or new trailer in which they can show off the CGI improvement.

I mean this is like the fourth or fifth time the Superbowl spot has been updated? Its becoming a bit redundant at this point as regardless of how much they alter or update the CGI or footage in the Superbowl spot the majority have already seen the original spot which gave a bad impression of the CGI.

Unless the general audience follow the film as much as us - then they likely wont bother watching effectively the same spot over and over again with minor changes.

While I don't know why they are necessary - I do like them also - I was just wonder why they weren't their in the first place as animating a CGI eye is probably more difficult than just animating CGI goggles.

If you get my drift - its less adding extra CGI and more just altering a scene when it comes to that part. The rest of the scenes either have improved CGI or changes to character models or additional CGI while the Crosshairs scene just has his goggles added.

I don't know how... I don't know why... but at some point someone will do a 'jump the shark' reference with your comments and it will be spectacular  

 

Funny that you should say that, because that's the exact same thing that went through my mind when I saw that scene. And pretty much every scene when parts come off the robots.

 

If you actively fight against liking a movie, you're going to find flaws. All movies have them. The movie isn't always responsible for keeping itself flawless. Its more responsible for keeping you in the movie. But, again, if you actively fight the movie, that's more your issue than its.

 

I think it's been established(before the trailers) that these Transformers aren't traditional robots as we are accustomed to. Their metal is more like flesh in the sense that they can grow and regrow relatively minor parts that have fallen off or shot off(supplemental material suggests that they grow bullets like fingernails.) So I guess it's like with ordinary people, but much tougher; you can afford to lose a fingernail, but if you get your hand shot off, you might need surgery(maybe.)

 

I do understand the want for characteristics that closely resemble cartoon counterparts (heck I'd like it personally and it does look like they might absolutely nail Lockdown), but in all fairness the opening credits do say it's based on Hasbro's Transformers toys and not cartoons or comics.

I really don't understand why some fans are upset that he doesn't look exactly like a real T-Rex since there hasn't been one Grimlock in history that has looked like a real T-Rex.

Well, two things here. Firstly it's very likely that they want people to see side by side comparisons so that some people would stop whining about how the CGI looks bad. Second is that even though it is the same spot, it actually isn't really being widely released. Neither of the updates were English spots. I think the first update was Swedish if I'm not mistaken.

Second time (Three if counting the original)

heh, heh. Probably unintentional yet punny lol

 

 

The shot inside Lockdown's ship is darker.

 

The very first time I saw Optimus riding Grimlock I thought he was way too big. If they made him smaller, then good.

 

You know...I'm going to have to start collecting Transformers toys again with this movie coming out

 

YEah, checked against the original. Grimlock's not smaller. He's turning.

 

Sam raimi's spiderman 3, and Bret ratner's x3: Last Stand

... Errr... Ah sheeeee-it....

 

Point out to me how the Dinobots in any incarnation reflect real dinosaurs.

Humanity still doesn't agree what "real dinosaurs" look like to begin with, and you think slapping leather skin on top of them will fix things? That would only get people to argue that they should have feathers, or that they look like Beast Wars knockoffs, or that G1 Dinobots didn't look like "real dinosaurs" (which they don't).

Because for whatever reason you think they're doing this instead of making a new trailer.

 

Even if most of a movie's development is in post-production? I'm sorry that Bay isn't making this film for you.

 

Fans are the best and worst people to listen to. It's part of the reason why we haven't gotten a good DBZ game in a while. You have to laugh at fans though. From the G1 nods in DOTM to getting Dinobots and Galvatron, apparently Bay isn't listening. People are so unappreciative. It's like people don't remember Bay saying that Dinobots are dumb around 2009.

Also, I notice that Grimlock's spine is spikier.

 

Well...aside from the spinosaurus (no one knows what it looks like coz the only decent collection of its fossils were bombed by the Allies in WWII), all the other dinobots "base dinosaur" has skin imprints, or feather imprints, that have been discovered... So aside from color, we have a good idea of what they look like, inferring from modern avians for things like muscle placements, muscle sizes, etc.

As far as bay's dinobots... I have no problem with them looking stupidly exaggerated since that's the motif of the TF live action movies. So it works in this world. It's no difference than people who complained Optimus was a fire truck in car robots and cybertron. Sorry, but not everything is g1.

Besides, there are plenty of movies with dinosaurs being made to look realistic on discovery channel every year... Some that rival the cgi of jurassic park, so why would I want realistic Dinos in an unrealistic transformers movie?