That actually wasn't my point at all...My 'argument' was less about a human face (structure wise) and more about the face being comprised of a seemingly solid sheet of metal...But yes, adding a tad more bit of detail such as you stated would be the fix for the visual suspension of technical disbelief.

It appears they do.

 

Dear Hasbro,
This is what BB should look like in live action.

Sincerely,
Dinobot Snarl

 

looks rad. Well done XM.

 

Wow. Just. That's inspiring to say the least. It's a shame it doesn't transform, I would kill to animate something this detailed

 

Welp. This is what I wanted all song for the Transformers live action franchise. Would have looked amazing on screen.

Dear Hasbro,

pay attention.

-A.S.

 

Completely redeems the $320 or so preorder for MP-44, doesn't it? I wonder if this thread will see a price justification discussion like every recent MP has. This doesn't even transform and it's over four times as expensive as MP-44 (which is definitely worth its cost in comparison).

(BTW, this isn't directed at you. Just following up on your comment.)

The answer to that is simple, their faces are made of a flexible Cybertronian alloy. Why the Hollywood "pros" couldn't find that in their imaginations I have no idea.  

 

X-Men... Colossus... Nuff said  

 

That just creates a whole new problem of then having people question why their whole body isn't just this flexible metal skin. Also, at what point would that be explained without it feeling like clunky superfluous exposition?

See, it's not about a lack of "imagination", as it were, but rather being able to create something visually that doesn't need extensive explanation. It's one thing to have exposition that sets up the base concept, but when you have to start explaining specific superficial details, it kinda needlessly bogs things down.

So you want Transformers to look like half naked Russian body builders?

 

They never explained how Transformers could scan a vehicle and then copy it down to the last minute detail just using parts of their own bodies, or how they could do a professional paint job on the new form too, and often while moving at high speed  

Not personally, but I'm sure there's a market for it  

 

The rest of the body is like body armor, so those panels are more rigid.

Doesn’t need to be, really. They’re from another planet with technology that’s more advanced than ours. That’s a given and no explanation is necessary.

Besides, the way the Bay movies were made didn’t solve that problem since the majority of dialogue was clunky superfluous exposition.  

I get that, and I don’t think that Transformers having a flexible metal skin for their faces is anything that audiences need explained in order for it to make sense.

Now, ask all of your previous questions in response to this one: If Transformers as depicted in the Bay movies can spontaneously change their appearance at will by scanning other machinery, how does that work, why don’t they do that more often, and why do they still need to mechanically transform?

That opens up more questions and need for exposition (which wasn’t given) than flexible metal would.

 

They ALL change themselves into bright red 80s Lambos and hilarity ensues  

 

That's because all of that plays out as a visual that explains itself for anyone with a base level of deductive skills. Even if it's a depiction of something that's not realistically possible, it's all down to the visuals showing a concept in action. But you start throwing in stuff like metal skin, it all starts to feel a bit like bullshit.

Although ultimately it may just point to the fact that Transformers is just a bullshit fiction, and really shouldn't ever venture outside of anything other then toy ad animation.

 

I do actually agree with you about the flexible metal face malarkey, I was just pointing out Colossus as a character where it works... and I get your point about the scanning visuals working even if I think the whole concept of what they're doing is, as you say, bullshit  

 

You think that, but no. Audiences are primarily made up of pseudo intellectual cynics that always pick apart everything. The trick to keeping them quite is to try and make everything presentable enough in concept so they'll relatively leave a piece of fiction well enough as is.

Bay movies are garbage, and no one likes them anymore but the most stubborn and or delusional neo-fan. My point was never to defend the Bay films.

 

I agree with you on that! I read a critique of Mortal Engines that said mobile cities weren't realistic... now in the universe of Mortal Engines they are very realistic, but if you were to plonk one down in Eastenders or Coronation Street then the critic may have a point  

I never liked them  



Now can someone remind me, what was the original topic of this thread?  

 

Something about an overpriced statue, I think.

 

I was pretty unsure on this design until I saw the face up close, and yeah, that actually does look pretty good.

That said, I'm pretty happy with the Bumblebee movie design. Not happy with the potential price point of this thing

 

For a metal human that looks good, but I prefer the Bayverse look.

 

That's a cool idea. Mostly the whole updating on the Exosuit.

 

There’s a neat little concept called “suspension of disbelief” that would have allowed us all to make the leap - you see, we are already in for watching a movie about huge alien robots that transform into vehicles to hide from humans. That’s enough to process without really requiring explanation for their metal face skin. I doubt anyone bat an eye if it was never brought up through in-movie dialogue (and wouldn’t that be an awkward conversation anyway? “Hey. Welcome to earth. What’s with the face?”)

-A.S.