From my perspective, that is untrue. I see a number of persons who give perfectly valid reasons for disliking the designs being targeted simply because they don't support a very loud majority. We all have the right to our opinions, don't we? Sure, some people are more vocal than others, but that is the case on both sides. Personally, I think most of these designs suck hard. I shouldn't have to justify my subjective feelings on the subject to anyone.

And I have to disagree with you about 'simplistic' transformations. While I certainly agree that the transformations here are anything but simplistic, I don't feel that this was the only way to handle the designs. From my perspective, these transformations look needlessly complex. The Citroen C4 commercial certainly demonstrates that an Alt-like transformation is very feasible without looking 'unrealistic'.

Honestly, 'different strokes for different folks' really applies well here. No amount of discussion is going to change my opinion on the subject, nor should it. Likewise, no amount of discussion is likely to sway a supporter of these designs.

 

Not one bit. People seem to be pleased with Jazz, for example, and the first several pages of the thread were positive in nature. It took quite a few posts before detractors started making stupid comments and argument flared up (as it tends to do in any movie thread).

Now, detractors and stupid comments are mutually exclusive, I'm not saying that a G1 fixation automatically makes you a raving, mannerless troll on here. It just happens much more often in that camp because they're the party that's lost this fight (with respect to getting what they want out of the movie).

Unfortunately, once it gets started it pretty much devolves the thread into the same thing time and time again.

 

I love it when folks state opinion as fact, because I thought RID Prime was awesome, when I think of weakest Prime figures, Machine Wars Prime, Energon Prime, and The Larger sized Armada Prime come to mind.

 

Wow, Jazz really is tiny  

 

That's a pretty big generalization. Personally, I find it a bit insulting. I certainly have heard just as much rhetoric from both sides. Sure its tiresome, but it takes two sides to continue any sort of debate. Avid supporters who jump on the detractors are no better than their opposing counterparts.

 

Please stop comparing small areas of transformers like Shockwave's exposed hose to the designs we've seen, which leave huge areas of the robot's delicate areas exposed. To me, and nobody has to agree with this, the G1 TF's and MANY TF's since then have looked like they could take a beating and still be able to transform. Optimus looks like a military soldier could shoot him with a pistol and damage enough of him to stop him from transforming. The TF's up until these movie versions have tended to have a bulky, strong look. The movie designs just look fragile. I guess as long as the movie designs don't start affecting the cartoon designs, it'll be okay. Again, that's just my opinion.

I honestly don't see all that many discernable vehicle parts on some of them. I see some parts, but not many. The designs also look like there are too many gaps to have enough of a "shell" to cover the robot mode when the TF is in alt mode. The designs also tend to look overly complex.

And something that REALLY bothers me is the scale of the TF's in relation to each other. I don't care if the vehicles are physically larger or smaller, I think the scale in bot mode should remain close to the normal scales for TF's (like keeping Prime and Megatron the same size and making Starscream about the same size as Megs instead of the hulking lardo Starscream I see in the new pics). I also feel that there shouldn't be any problem using heads that closely resemble the G1 heads, which would have quelled some of the anger towards these bots (which Bay and company had hinted that they would look similar to the G1 bots b/c they had some major G1 fans on the project). To be honest, I feel like Bay and company lied to us about the G1 aspect of the movie, b/c this movie was supposed to be pleasing to G1 fans too from what I remember, and I'm not too happy with the designs. I'm a G1 fan, but I've liked most of the series since then and I liked most of the designs from the newer series. Bay said he's trying to keep the movie "realistic", but don't Transformers Classics look realistic and have GREAT alt modes? I know they couldn't use those designs b/c they are looking to make money off different toys, but it's just an example of how they can "re-imagine" something without making it look almost non-Transformerish. Honestly, I don't see how Bay can avoid the dreaded "movie magic" with the current designs at least to some extent.

Oh well, that's just my opinion on the movie anyway.

 

No, it's "detractors" such as myself and others who are voicing our displeasure at the second-rate designs. Jazz looks alright if he were cast as a Robotic Bugs Bunny.

 

No, I don't think they do look realistic. Don't get me wrong, I think the Classics toys look great and I'll be getting all of them, but they, and other TFs that have come before them, don't look realistic enough for a live action movie to me. Their movement would be too limited, and, like I said, their transformations aren't complicated enough for robots 20-30 feet tall. They're just as complicated as they need to be for 6-9" high toys. For the first time ever in TF history, there's a new main line/continuity out there that is NOT aimed primarily at sellling toys (though that's certainly ONE of the aims of it), but its primary aim is to make a good, at least somewhat believable action movie. Now, whether you agree with how alien they made the TFs look is one thing, but they needed to have a different look from conventional TFs for the reasons of movement and to make it believable that they're 20-30 feet tall, not upsized 6" toys.

 

"Robotic Bugs Bunny" tells me you have nothing particular to complain about, just that something displeases you so you're going to dredge up a looney tunes metaphor and be content to make fun of the design, rather than mention a specific concern about it. That's the reaction of someone who does not want discussion, they want one-sided mockery of their chosen target.

Protostar8's argument above yours is much more thought-out and explanatory, where he mentions a "fragile" aesthetic, a shortage of vehicle kibble, and the individual character scale being out of whack. He approaches the subject with explanation, not indignation, and has carried a very spirited and well-articulated debate for several pages now. He gives us analysis, rather than emotional tantrums.

If the positions were reversed, who would YOU rather discuss the difference of opinion with?

 

How about this, I'll respond as I see fit.

I think we need a real poll to lay the question of the majority opinion to rest...

I have created a poll here: http://www.vizu.com/poll-vote.html?n=12184

 

I really should have stated that as late model Primes. And do you know what the difference between opinion and fact is? Majority support. Nothing more.

 

Thanks for the kind words. It's good to know that someone actually realizes I'm not just a G1 fanboy complaining about things I don't like without a reason (or downing a G1 fanboy for voicing their opinion).  

 

I agree with Dio as well. I disagree with your assessment of the designs, but you are reasonable about your complaints, so I respect that.

Shockwave was just a small example. I had in mind a few people's complaints about Prime's gun being attached to a cable from his back. In any case, MP-01 has a great deal of exposed machinery. His knees are actually more exposed than movie Prime's (he has huge knee guards in front), so if these internal parts were as fragile as you seem to think, it would be easier to kneecap MP Prime and disable him than it would to do the same to the movie Prime.

When I see the "exposed" parts on some of the movie designs (which a lot of people are exaggerating anyway, IMO) I see what looks to me like a lot of redundancy in their apparent function. Multiple cables and pistons and servos sharing one purpose. If your hypothetical soldier shot movie Prime in one of his exposed areas, if it even did any damage at all (I doubt the parts would be exposed if they couldn't take it), the backup parts would likely keep him functioning acceptably until he could be repaired. Think of the original version of the Borg cubes in Star Trek TNG. Every function of the cube has innumerous redundant backups everywhere on the cube. Even if you manage to knock a chunk out of it (which is difficult to begin with) the functions of the cube are unaffected.

 

I think your poll needs some more options.

I dont HATE the designs but I dont LOVE them either and it's no where near not CARING. I tend toward the feeling that things that can be done to the general concept of the designs that could drastically improve their appearance... other than SS and maybe Megs (although I think Megs falls more in the category of the changes than a complete re-design, SS needs something close to a complete re-design)

of course this is all my opinion... which is that of reasonable person who grew up with G1 and knows that things cant ever be the same as yester-year... as much as I'd like that at times.

 

Pretty much the Transformers are going to be what they are going to be in this movie. None of us can change that. Besides, at least they transform into something so get over it..

 

I think that US, all the people posting here and at Seibertron are the best proof that these designs are not recognisable.

I mean, for a few pages, lots of people were guessing whether the TF in the front row, on the left, was Brawl or Bonecrusher - some even thought he was Blackout, one guy even thought him the new mode of Megatron.

IMHO, if you can't tell about a TF from the first look that he transforms into a huge brown tank or a yellow 8-wheeler, there is something really wrong with said design...

 

Fixed.

 

I think that brawl look's like a bahemoth, talk about gunz, unless that skorponok

 

I vote we get a ton of people to change their opinions to "The sky is not blue, it's yellow." Since it would be supported by the majority, it would then be fact.

 

I know you think you are being cleverly sarcastic, but Einstein's theory of spatial continuity supports exactly that.