Υοu dont need to justify the reasons to me, for buying it. If you like it buy a dozen  

My point is, that even if we like something, we cant pretend that it actually is good looking.

 

AOE-TLK Optimus Prime is seriously sexy to me  

 

I love them all. Except the human looking robots of AOE,TLK and those caricature robots like the twins,wheely etc.

 

As a lifelong Bay fan I don’t think all his robot designs are bad.

Objectively they ARE to some extent, may it be due to the blanant racist stereotypes or just being an overcomplicated eye hurting jumble of pieces. But again, not all robots look like some racial caricature or a Cybertronian mess of junkyard metal, so arguing that all Baybots are bad because one of them looks like Albert Einstein is just ridiculous.

 

A few of them work: Brawl, Jazz, Ratchet, Sideswipe, 85% of Ironhide, 98% of Optimus Prime, Long Haul and Jetfire. The rest of them I find unpleasant, annoying, or absurd for the sheer purpose of being absurd.

 

It’s the same thing again and again. People have a certain idea of what they like and what they want. I really fancy the movies, all of them. And I find the characters design great because it is a very difficult exercise and it is quite a hard challenge. I think we all have to be wise and accept that some things will not fulfill all of our wishes.

 

transformers try to strike a balance of mechanical design which is to make something complex as possible and character to design which is to make something as as simple as possible while still being appealing. miost tfs are designed with character design over mechanical while bayverse does the reverse. majority of people prefer transfromers as characters more than machines

 

The designs are garbage and they've always been garbage? Why? They look like twisted up, vomited metal. They look ugly. There's nothing visually appealing or cool looking about them. They are also huge departures from the iconic look.

A big thing about these characters is the iconography, and these designs basically jettison a lot of what made these characters look iconic. At least Travis Knight understood that, how important those silhouettes are.

 

I have to disagree with the argument that the extra details make the bayverse designs look more flimsy compared to anything else. Now I don't know much about military hardware but I am assuming that we have developed technology that would punch a hole in a giant robot, or at the very least knock it flat on its back.

 

I agree, Jazz was the hardest to recognize when I first saw him in theaters. In the final battle I thought he was just an ordinary cybertronian trying to get by in the middle of a battle because he and Megs both had silver lighting so I couldn't really acknowledge who's an autobot or decepticon at that time. When he got killed, my first thought was "where did that little guy come from?!?!?", as we walked out of the theater, I had to ask my mom if that was the "little autobot" he killed.

 

Except, of course, sometimes the iconic look has, to put it nicely, more logical holes than a Swiss cheese.

For example, why is Starscream about the same height as the Autobot cars he should, logically, tower over? Starscream turns into a fighter jet, which are, in real life, 19.4 m (63.8 feet) long. This would make his robot mode colossal in comparison to most Autobots; even a Peterbilt 379 truck is only about half that.

How does Shockwave talk without a discernible mouth? You can't even say, "oh he has a mouth behind his faceplate", like Optimus, Wheeljack and Soundwave; his face is literally just a single eye.

 

They are giant robots, the series doesn't need scale to be super logical. Look at Blitzwing in the new movie, no one is complaining about that design and how dense he'd have to be to compact down into his robot mode. And Shockwave is also a robot, he doesn't need a mouth, none of them do, they could just have speakers. That's why Bumblebee's voice box thing never made sense, if he has speakers and a brain to make words, all you need is a vocoder program and he can talk.

 

Except that's not a proper answer; and "it's just a movie, shut up" is probably the worst explanation for anything ever.

Again, how can Starscream be the same height as Autobots he should, logically, dwarf? Again, with a fighter jet alt mode, he would make be amongst the largest everyday Transformers and would tower over pretty much all the Autobots. What's the explanation for that?

Again, how can Shockwave talk without a discernible mouth? And if mouths aren't needed, why is Shockwave the only character without a mouth or mouth-like structure?

If Travis Knight is staying on, he, or whoever replace him, should find some way to explain those facts or change the designs to account for them.

 

Personally, I think that design is really good-looking. I don't see why it's taking some flak. I really love these bizarre, non-humanoid designs. I find something like this more interesting and more visually-appealing than even, say, first trilogy Optimus. It may not be humanoid, but it has a neat design, and it's well proportioned and all.

 

Yeah, some of these designs are meant to be "ugly", liked aliens and monsters. I love the variety and the departure from the G1 aesthetic. These designs are more detailed and unique.
That said, regarding the thread title, I can understand if someone doesn't like them. People have different tastes. I hated the TF Animated aesthetic, others liked it...

 

Don't talk to me about logic in defense of Michael Bay's Transformers movies.

 

I like the movie designs and kind of cringe a bit whenever I see arguments that are just "it doesn't look the same as G1 despite there being lots of versions of the characters that barely resemble their G1 selves before" or "the aliens look too alien" (now, the aliens look too ugly on the other hand...), but I do understand the arguments that they look too cluttered or try too hard to be "realistic". I mean I can see where the idea that they need to be complex came from (aside from having really pretty visuals of course) since more complex transformations=less kibble=less restriction of movement which is probably what a "real" transforming machine would be going for, but admittedly it can go too far at times.

 

I know its an oximoron, but this is more humanoid than you believe. By virtue of its 'alienification' be so forced it makes no real sense in anything. And no its proportions are completely wrong. For a robotic life form that needs to be effiecient in both its forms to achieve its primary tasks (war and construction in this instance) it completely fails 50%. And it has been done so forcefully, to look alien by some percieved (wrongly) human way of thinking that all aliens have to look completely bizare.

 

Except that's not a proper answer; you haven't explained anything.

How can Starscream be the same height as Autobots he should, logically, dwarf? Again, with a fighter jet alt mode, he would make be amongst the largest everyday Transformers and would tower over pretty much all the Autobots. What's the explanation for that?

How can Shockwave talk without a discernible mouth? And if mouths aren't needed, why is Shockwave the only character without a mouth or mouth-like structure?

If Travis Knight is staying on, he, or whoever replaces him, should find some way to explain those facts or change the designs to account for them.

 

But not ALL the Transformers looked completely bizarre.

Starscream's transformation was probably like that of the cube which folded into itself until it fit in Bumblebee's hand.
There may have been more Transformers without mouths that just weren't in the movie. Or shockwave may have been unique with a speaker instead of a mouth. There were many other design elements that were unique to certain Transformers.