why do people hate michael bay's designs?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by setientshoebox, Dec 3, 2021.

  1. BigRed

    BigRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    3,402
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +8,829
    Bumblebee is a movie from 2018, the first Bay movie had it's CGI effects early development start in late 2005 at a time where most technologies used right now were still being developed (some are already outdated and have already been dropped, thats how much time has passed) and rendering reflective surfaces that felt real was flat out not yet possible. The rest of your post is your own opinion and valid as your genuine feelings, but this part is absurd. ILM's staff would not lie about the reason behind their choices, we have no reason to assume they weren't being honest about the reason behind the direction they chose, specially when we know what other CGI heavy films of the time looked like and we can easily verify that the technology really wasn't there yet.

    You can maybe argue that "there is no reason to keep the robots looking like that now" and I would agree out of personal preference and due to the Bee movie proving things have evolved massively, but the movies were insanely succesful and started trends in robot design in their own way too, so it is no surprise they tried to stick to it for a while.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  2. sikkusushotto

    sikkusushotto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2021
    Posts:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Likes:
    +2,676
    I am completely aware of that as well as the leaps in CGI technology since 2005. Literally the only reason I watched these movies upon release was for the CGI. I had read the leaked script beforehand and knew the CGI would be the only attraction.

    But how much of that is because of the designs or is that despite the designs? I would argue going with a slightly more conservative look would have (a) generated much more goodwill and word of mouth marketing by fans and (b) triggered more nostalgia purchasing.

    upload_2022-1-21_20-55-40.png upload_2022-1-21_20-57-32.png
    As with the Megatron example, let me be very clear. CGI limitations are not responsible for:
    - his lips being all the way down near his chin
    - that bulbous pyramid of a nose
    - triangular eyelids
    - overall head proportions
    - those blue cheek plates extending so far to the middle, making his face plate narrow, sharp and birdlike
    - his weaker head crest

    That is 100% art direction.

    upload_2022-1-21_20-59-27.png upload_2022-1-21_21-4-12.png
    AOE fixed things somewhat while introducing other problems like that pronounced horizontal ridge extending out from his "nostrils". There is no reason that the AOE design or something similar could not have been used for the 07 movie.

    When I say the BB movie invalidates that excuse, I meant in terms of proportions and faithfulness. I actually think the CGI in BB is not as good as the previous films and the film commits many other design sins. Of course lighting and particle effects have come far, but solid geometry is solid geometry.
    upload_2022-1-21_21-7-22.png
    Take AOE Prime:
    - keep the overall complexity and parts count roughly the same
    - make the eye sockets slightly rounder
    - make the head a tiny bit wider
    - more blue, less silver (but leave wear and tear around the edges to break up the surfaces)
    - make the head crest more prominent and make it stick out forwards instead of tapering down to the nose
    - flatten the nose ridge
    - make the face plate wider and entirely silver or different shades of silver (it can still consist of multiple parts)

    and we get a much more "traditional" Prime head that would look roughly in between AOE and BB.

    Ultimately it comes down to art direction and film direction. ILM did spectacular work with what they were given, but ultimately they do what they're told to do. Unfortunately, the ones giving the orders have no love nor respect for the franchise. So this is what we end up with.

    For what it's worth, I quite like the heads of ROTF Soundwave and AOE Lockdown, and Soundwave as a satellite is a really good alt-mode for him (he should have stayed in space in DOTM IMO).
    upload_2022-1-21_21-29-47.png upload_2022-1-21_21-30-1.png
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. BigRed

    BigRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    3,402
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +8,829
    I mean, if you put a gun to my head and asked me that I would assume the designs did land succesfully with audiences, because I recall at the time trying to show the past of the franchise to younger family members thinking they would be interested and their instant reaction to a picture of the G1 Bumblebee (not even from the actual cartoon, it was an illustration that looked significantly more "traditionally cool") was instant "ew" and a "he looks gay!" (gay, obviously, meaning lame since this was 2007 hahahaha) and generally they did not take kindly to the simpler robots and only begrudingly saw coolness in Cybertron era toys I had at hand. They seemed to genuinely like the angular and broken up and alien look more than anything I showed to them. Completely anedoctal, of course, but considering how much toyline profits Hasbro made at the time and how many general audience folks flocked to theaters (including a friend of mine who absolutely loathed anime and cartoons and mostly consumed FIFA and CoD games) I'd say that managing to get general audience folks and the new generation of kids interested was an effort that paid off to them despite adult geeks saying "Ironhide is not that! Ironhide is a rectangular boxy guy wearing a roman helmet!"

    On your later comments on the designs, I'm sorry but I can't say I agree hahahaa. Lockdown's "too human'' face always looked lame and cheesy to me, I can't take 3d human faces seriously and the more humanoid those faces got in upcoming films the more I disliked them, specially when the robots even started having humand shaped lips and nostrils. I also dislike the original Optimus face precisely because of how much it still looked human, I much prefered the other autobots like Ratchet and Jazz who had anthromorphical features like mouths and eyes but in much more stylised ways. In the Bumblebee movie I really like the way they did the face for the Decepticons Shatter and Dropkick, they feel unfriendly and alien but without being flat out snarling beasts like the cheesy and nonsensical Dark of the Moon decepticons. Mind you that I can handle things like that in the cartoons and comics but in a movie setting in live action trying to blend in with human footage it doesn't work for me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  4. sikkusushotto

    sikkusushotto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2021
    Posts:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Likes:
    +2,676
    I thought his head was decent. I still find his mouth area to be disappointing, considering the TF universe has hundreds of better looking faceplates to choose from.

    That's perfectly understandable. I've had the same reaction to G1 Bumblebee my entire life. This is another topic entirely, but movieverse/aligned Bumblebee really is Hot Shot/Hot Rod/Cheetor/similar. This is even more apparent with this guy:
    upload_2022-1-22_14-52-18.png

    My problem with the movie designs is not that they aren't G1 accurate. I don't care that much about G1 accuracy, in fact I prefer updated versions (thank you Classics/Henkei) which are faithful (not accurate!) to the original. My problem is that many bizarre, unnecessary and internally inconsistent design choices were made which are either really uncreative or really aesthetically questionable.

    Of course building a new customer base is important. However...they could have chosen to go about it the Marvel way. A big part of why the MCU is so successful is because the characters mostly look and act how people expect them to. This is the case because those movies were made by people who actually understood and cared about the IP and gave it the respect it deserved.

    Imagine if we had gotten a Megatron that looks like this:
    upload_2022-1-22_16-0-29.png
    (side note: I'm aware Flame Toys has only existed since 2016, however similar designs have been available since the early 2000s)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. zark225

    zark225 Talon Productions on YouTube

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    5,598
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Likes:
    +13,911
    Ebay:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Custom URL):
    Not gonna lie, I find the notion of the movie designs being "uncreative" to be absolutely crazy. I've seen a lot of people that don't like the designs give them props for that and for a lot of fans, myself included, the creativity is a big reason why we like the movie designs. I don't know, just seems like a way to hate on something that's a positive.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  6. Nova Maximus

    Nova Maximus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2020
    Posts:
    11,345
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Location:
    Mississauga, Canada
    Likes:
    +53,937
    I like the creativity of the designs from 07-DOTM.

    I just personally don't like the aesthetics.
     
  7. Moy

    Moy Constructicons!

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    11,216
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +5,976
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. WallflowerBlush

    WallflowerBlush Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2021
    Posts:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Likes:
    +1,475
    Because they are ugly. Doesn't mean it's not creative. They are ugly because of how out there they are
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. zark225

    zark225 Talon Productions on YouTube

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    5,598
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Likes:
    +13,911
    Ebay:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Custom URL):
    Eh, I disagree there, but to each their own.
     
  10. sikkusushotto

    sikkusushotto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2021
    Posts:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Likes:
    +2,676
    Examples?

    I can give some that I think are creative (robot designs/concepts only):
    - ROTF Soundwave as a satellite
    - Prime power-up formed out of dead Jetfire parts
    - Multi-robot alt-modes (ROFT twins, TLK dragon)
    - (semi-creative...let's call it innovative) Prime's trailer housing his various weapons and jetpacks
    - Lockdown's face becoming a cannon
    - Hound's cigar weapon
    - The Decepticon arm on Sqweeks

    I can and have already given multiple examples of a severe lack of creativity. If I had to choose one, just one example to be the "poster-criticism" for movieverse uncreativity it would be how every second Decepticon looks like a combination of these two images:
    upload_2022-1-22_22-47-7.png upload_2022-1-22_22-47-44.png
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. fallenspartan

    fallenspartan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2021
    Posts:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    162
    Location:
    Zeta Halo
    Likes:
    +2,307
    With a little modification he could stand out as Rhinox.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JonzyYT

    JonzyYT Studio Series is great again!

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2019
    Posts:
    3,561
    News Credits:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Location:
    Directly below The Enemy Scrotum
    Likes:
    +16,433
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    A lot of the hate is very forced
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. zark225

    zark225 Talon Productions on YouTube

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    5,598
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Likes:
    +13,911
    Ebay:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Custom URL):
    I mean I think that most of them are creative, especially in 1-3. My biggest example would be the Constructicons, a very diverse group that hardly look a like and, even if most are bipedal, all are very different and cool.

    As for your example, yes many Decepticons are sharp looking but they all don't look a like, unless you count something like the Protoforms. Not to mention only one of them looks like the Predator, that being DOTM Crankcase, so I think that saying that every Decepticon looks like that is simply wrong.

    What would you consider uncreative? Because I haven't seen much to back that up.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. JonzyYT

    JonzyYT Studio Series is great again!

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2019
    Posts:
    3,561
    News Credits:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Location:
    Directly below The Enemy Scrotum
    Likes:
    +16,433
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    it's funny, because they say that a lot of the designs are reused for different background characters. Yet G1 has the same designs for the seekers, sideswipe, sunstreaker, red alert etc etc.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. zark225

    zark225 Talon Productions on YouTube

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    5,598
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Likes:
    +13,911
    Ebay:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Custom URL):
    I have never understood that complaint. Literally every series does it, hell one of the most famous groups in Transformers, the Seekers, is a bunch of recolors and everyone always wants them. So it's been in Transformers from the start. Then the CGI is expensive, so of course they'll have to reuse assets.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  16. sikkusushotto

    sikkusushotto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2021
    Posts:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Likes:
    +2,676
    I didn't say every.

    upload_2022-1-23_13-39-22.png upload_2022-1-23_13-40-31.png upload_2022-1-23_13-41-3.png upload_2022-1-23_13-43-22.png upload_2022-1-23_13-45-24.png upload_2022-1-23_13-45-39.png upload_2022-1-23_13-46-13.png upload_2022-1-23_13-46-46.png upload_2022-1-23_13-48-23.png upload_2022-1-23_13-48-52.png upload_2022-1-23_13-50-11.png upload_2022-1-23_13-52-56.png

    It's common film/tv shorthand to depict the enemy side as the "other". Red eyes + sharp teeth and claws + insectoid features = evil. It's a frankly lazy way of quickly telling the audience that these guys are the bad guys.

    There are two main problems with that:
    1. Autobots and Decepticons are the same "species". This is a civil or ideological war, not a race war. It isn't human-looking bots vs. alien-looking bots.
    2. Throughout most of Transformers history, it is actually the Decepticons with more elegant robot modes, mainly because they tend to take more aircraft/spaceship/weapon-based alt-modes, while Autobot alt-modes tend to be more mundane and utilitarian. This is reflected in their robot modes.

    Going from a more unconventional setup (both sides are the same "people", bad guys more aesthetically pleasing, good guys mundane) to a very conventional and trope-y concept of good guys look heroic, bad guys look like insect alien monsters, is the definition of uncreative.

    The entire concept of hatchlings in ROTF and DOTM suffers from the same problem. We have a fairly "new" concept of Transformers being built then given personalities/life by a matrix/prime or supercomputer/Vector Sigma or some other source. Instead in the movieverse we get hatchlings, which is very predictable and very clichéd. Of course the insectoid alien monsters grow hatchlings in pods. One trope very often comes with the other.

    Once again, going from a unique method of creation to a very typical insect-alien-hatching method is the very definition of uncreative.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  17. Marvelboy1974

    Marvelboy1974 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +1,646
    I don’t mind artistic changes or reinterpretation but other than Optimus and Jazz ( who more or less resembled their original design. I mean you knew who they were by looking at them) none of the other characters were recognizable. Megatron looked like crumpled aluminum tin foil. Starscream looked like a Dorito with a bird beak and chicken legs. Ironhide wasn’t even red and lacked his Mohawk helmet. I still want the character to actually look like the original character. I tried my best to appreciate the designs but eventually decided to get rid of all my movie toys. I think the BB movie provided a nice balance between something new yet recognizable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. zark225

    zark225 Talon Productions on YouTube

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    5,598
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Likes:
    +13,911
    Ebay:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Custom URL):
    Just joking around here, but technically speaking you did:"If I had to choose one, just one example to be the "poster-criticism" for movieverse uncreativity it would be how every second Decepticon looks like a combination of these two images"..

    But anyways, if you're using those as proof that those look like the Predator and forks combined then, aside from the already mentioned Crankcase/Berserker and maybe Crowbar/Dreadbot, Hatchet, which were all designed similarly with two being model reuses, and maaaaaybe Infernocus, I don't see it. I just think its a bad comparison and is reaching in my opinion.

    The thing that really bugs me here is criticizing the shorthand of differentiating the heroes and villains. While sure, the movies could have taken this to an extreme, this has been prevalent in not just the Transformers franchise, but most franchises of this nature, especially something like Transformers that lends itself to catering to toy sales. Lazy or not, this has been a thing for a long time and will continue to be. Bad guys are associated with darker colors, spikes and sharp pieces, and large size. I mean, Transformers has done stuff like this from the very beginning, with the statement that the bad guys would be all the hardware and military vehicles and the good guys would be cars and trucks (thats coming from Aaron Archer in the 2007 movie special features) and not to mention the simple fact of Autobots having blue eyes and Decepticons having red. That's something the movies even kept, aside from a few exceptions like Frenzy's blue eyes or Devastator's green. Yes, the Autobots are a bit more humanoid than the Decepticons, but really not by much. They're just a bit rounder and maybe have a bit more human features, at least starting off, but compare the 2007 characters and designs. Ironhide and Ratchet really wouldn't look too out of place amongst the Decepticons in my mind, especially in darker colors although that's more so in Ratchet's case.

    For example, I'm watching RID2001 currently in my second watch through and the Predacons exist at the same time as the Autobots, but they look almost completely different. Hell Megatron has huge spikes and whatnot in that show in addition to wings and all sorts of odd-looking stuff, let alone mentioning the other Predacons, whereas the Autobots do not. Would some of the same stuff apply or would you still use your reasoning of the alternate form being a factor? Which is something I don't buy by the way, while I'm all for the alternate mode being a part of a character's personality and whatnot, I feel what you have described in this thread in previous posts is extremely limiting if only certain characters can be certain alt modes. Why can't a more monstrous-looking character like Crowbar turn into a typical vehicle? This franchise is about Robots in Disguise, which is all an alt mode is at the end of the day.

    It seems your issue is with the sequels. I have never bought into the idea of the movie Autobots and Decepticons not looking like they're from the same race. They are a species of shape-shifting alien robots that can alter their appearance at will. There should be a wide variety of characters in different sizes, shapes, with a bunch of different features, and that is what the movies leaned into and ran with. I love that they embraced them being actual aliens instead of everyone looking humanoid, even if AOE and TLK made everyone look humanoid for the most part. Plus isn'ta common, for whatever reason, criticism of the movies that all of the characters look alike? So how is this discussion now that they look too different? I also feel like this idea of Autobots are mundane and Decepticons are "aesthetically pleasing" only majorly applies to G1. Most other versions have Autobots turning into crazier versions of vehicles and sports cars and stuff, although not without the occasional plain vehicle. Can you really say that most of the Unicron Trilogy Autobots are mundane? certainly, jujst on the basis of most of them being futuristic in design. Sure, the design basis for the movie Autobots and Decepticons is a bit tropey, but tropes exist for a reason and are still used for a reason: because they work. I still don't think that stops a lot of these designs from being creative and to be honest this defense of them being uncreative is asinine to me.

    Talking about the hatchlings, that always came off to me as a sort of desperate measure by the Decepticons to keep making troops, plus a lot of media, including the movies themselves, say this isn't a normal thing since the AllSpark gave like and they may have been built going by AOE and TLK. Like Optimus Prime or Megatron weren't made that way, so I don't see it that way. It's probably headcanon, but that always came off as a "we need troops and we need them fast" type of thing. Again, the pods thing might be a bit of a trope but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Not to mention that they are such a minor part, is it really worth having an issue with?

    To me, if you wanted to get into the designs being uncreative, why not go for the AOE or TLK designs? I wouldn't really agree there either, but I feel like there is a stronger case with characters using warriors throughout history, like knights, ninjas, samurai, commandos, etc. as a starting point, not to mention not using much alternate mode kibble on the designs. I find many designs from those films great and creative, but I feel they could certainly be seen as more uncreative than the 2007-DOTM designs, and have a better foundation for an argument for them being so.

    I just don't them being uncreative, especially using the trope excuse of good guys looking too heroic or bad guys looking too evil. Even with its more adult attitude, these movies still have the sell to kids mindset that many things have. People bitched and moaned about the characters all looking alike but now they look too different. Like it or not, it's done to help get a quick read on a character and being able to tell if they're good or bad. I don't see that as a bad thing, and it has been a part of this and many other franchises from the beginning, and I and many others think that we got some very creative and unique designs from it. Not to mention at the end of the day, its all subjective, you can't really objectively say the movie designs are uncreative based on tropes or not. To each their own.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
    • Like Like x 2
  19. sikkusushotto

    sikkusushotto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2021
    Posts:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Likes:
    +2,676
    So close! Just one more word...
    how every second Decepticon = ~50%

    Much less in Transformers than in other franchises. Even Beast Wars, where the Predacons all have insect or dinosaur beast modes, threw some twists in with Dinobot and Blackarachnia joining the Maximals. Then Beast Machines had the opposite, Maximals were all chaotic with weird proportions and the Vehicons were sleek and ordered.

    Yes that's all fine.

    However, consider this:
    upload_2022-1-24_19-38-16.png
    I've removed their faction symbols. They're all armed, they have a variety of alt-modes. We see blue, red and purple eyes. Can you tell just from the design language who is an Autobot and who is a Decepticon?

    Good choice!

    Well first of all they are Predacons, not Decepticons. Gigatron has 9-10 modes with several of them being various dragons, I think he's allowed some spikes. The other Predacons all have cohesive designs (or rather, took the chaotic but aesthetically cohesive TM2 designs). Their designs, especially their faces, correspond well to their alt-modes. Gaskunk even has his tail coming out of the top of his head, Gelshark has his shark fin on top of his head. This proves exactly what I was saying, their designs match their alt-modes very well.

    The Combatrons look like "normal" Cybertronians/Decepticons. It doesn't get more basic than this:
    upload_2022-1-24_18-14-42.png upload_2022-1-24_18-15-19.png
    Notice how none of them are all spiked-up or have sharp teeth and multiple red eyes.

    Car Robots/RID had a minor plot point of the alt-mode influencing the robot personality, e.g. Indy Heat and Wrecker Hook (not sure what the US names are).

    There's nothing stopping that. There needs to be a strong in-universe justification for it though, since it does go against most of the established media (pre-movies of course). But we arrive back at my earlier point of going from a less clichéd state of affairs to a more clichéd one. The justification needs to be strong enough to offset the lack of creativity and the change vs. established precedent.

    As it stands, the movies don't have any justification beyond "grrr Decepticons are evil and alien". If the people in charge knew anything about Transformers or bothered to hire someone who does, they might have noticed that there actually are examples of this, for example Beast Wars 2 Apache, who has a monstrous "third mode". This third mode or "rage" mode has a head and design with no connection to his beast or robot modes.

    Here's a quick example that would have been more acceptable: let the Decepticons have "normal" faces, but have the "Predator" face be a combat mask like what Bumblebee has that they can activate when they go into battle.

    Fully agreed there should be a variety of shapes and sizes and features, and we see that anyway in TF media going back to 1984.

    Shape-shifting + altering their appearance at will is a movieverse thing though, and arguably one of its biggest problems, though since this thread is about design I'll stick to design.

    There are many other 80s/90s cartoons or films or whatever where normal looking good guys fight monster/alien looking bad guys. Part of the appeal of Transformers is that it doesn't follow that trend. Therefore I cannot support the movieverse going that direction.

    It was never about them looking alike (though more variety would have been welcome, it's not even a CGI workload issue either, since each one of the faces needs to be individually modelled, textured and rigged anyway). It was the fact that they chose to use that shorthand/design language for good vs. evil.

    True, there was a power creep in later G1, especially JG1. Though you still had the basic police car, ambulance, boat etc. Autobots while the Decepticons were mostly jets and tanks and stuff.

    For Armada, let's see:
    Decepticons: tank, helicopter, jet, tank, jet, ship(s), sports car
    Autobots: trailer truck, sports car, sports car, space shuttle, ambulance, construction vehicle, car, construction vehicle, huge trailer thing

    The Autobots are slightly more "everyday" than the Decepticons, though the difference is not as significant as in G1. In terms of robot modes for me personally only Cyclonus and Demolisher look "ugly", but the rest of the Decepticons are quite good looking.

    I think there's a difference between using existing TF tropes vs. importing external tropes.

    I think it's important to state that creativity does not necessarily mean good. Uncreative does not necessarily mean bad. Implementation counts as well.

    Animated has a good implementation of the "Decepticons being a different class of robot" concept, with how big and powerful each Decepticon was compared to any random Autobot. Animated also had a good in-universe explanation for that, plus despite the differences, they were still identifiably part of the same "species".

    Why waste time growing when it's already well established in TF media that you can just build new robots. You just need a source of life after they've been built.

    Consider this: in the Fallen's ship in ROTF, instead of having hatchling pods, there is a factory space or assembly line, where workers were rushing to build new troops/create new protoforms. Then have a short scene where the Fallen uses his "matrix" to bring a new Decepticon to life and show the impact and drain it has on his system. This works much better within the context of TF.

    Yes, because it sticks out like a sore thumb. This goes right down to how Transformers are made.

    Mainly because I didn't want to spend hours dissecting each movie. Fully agreed, especially with TLK. The whole knight thing is a really cringey concept. Also, why does the old tank bot need to have an army officer's cap?

    They couldn't have at least made Drift a japanese car? Or Crosshairs a british car? I feel like Hound is one of the few designs which is quite cohesive in terms of vehicle mode and robot mode. His face could be a little less human though.

    Kids seemed to be able to tell the difference just fine in the 80s and 90s.

    And yes that is exactly my point. It's cinematic shorthand. I don't think it should be used in Transformers. Besides, TF has its own good/evil shorthand/tropes:
    - good guys red logo, bad guys purple logo
    - good guys' base is gold, bad guys' base silver/blue/purple
    - good guys peaceful vehicles, bad guys war vehicles
    - good guys shoot yellow lasers, bad guys shoot purple lasers
    and most certainly more.

    So why oh why do we need to import other tropes into this franchise?

    I think it's possible to objectively identify a trope and to notice when it's being used. Optimus Prime dying is a trope. Optimus Prime coming back to life is a trope. Megatron coming back as Galvatron is a trope. Japanese TF shows having the 3 Decepticon/Predacon comic relief characters is a trope. The audience can decide for themselves whether or not it's good or bad.

    It's also not a stretch to call something uncreative if an older trope is re-used without any new twist. This also does not make any judgment on it's quality or implementation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. TheSoundwave

    TheSoundwave Bounty Hunter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Posts:
    8,088
    News Credits:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    Jabba's Palace
    Likes:
    +15,998
    I get feeling like the insectoid "space bugs" approach for the Decepticons was cliché, but let's be real...the G1 Decepticons weren't exactly the height of innovation or originality either. A maniacal melomaniac and his army of henchmen. I think it's fine to prefer the G1 approach (I would argue the latter lends itself to more diversity in characterization), but I can see what Bay and co were going for.

    I see it as more of a changing of the times (and audiences) than anything. G1 was basically a superhero show...noble heroes vs dastardly villains. Like most '80s action cartoons. I've always said the Bay movies are closer to disaster films than traditional superhero stories...the Autobots are more like blue collar average Joes (who just happen to be from space), and the Decepticons are more of a looming existential threat than a rival faction. I totally get not liking that approach (I'm iffy on it myself), but I do have more appreciation for it than I used to. Disaster movies were popular in the '90s and 2000s, so it made sense to lean into that. And I do think the movie Decepticons were cool, even if they weren't quite what you'd expect.

    I agree here. I actually think 2007 Optimus looks great with his mask up, but the face underneath is really awkwardly proportioned. I guess he's supposed to look alien and doesn't really have to adhere to ideal human proportions, but I've never been crazy about that face.

    It feels like he was designed with the mask as the 'default', and the face underneath was reverse-engineered from that as an afterthought. Which I'm almost certain was the case. Kind of like how Bumblebee in TFP looked a bit weird when they revealed his mouth. That face was so clearly not designed to have a mouth. Then again, I find a lot of the TFP faces weirdly proportioned.

    I think his face in AOE looks much more appealing. Much better proportions, and I get a more "alive" feeling from him. Although ironically, I think the masked face suffers a bit. If you could combine those two faces, I think it would be the ideal movie Optimus head.
     
    • Like Like x 2