Agreed about the robots in the cartoon. When people complained about the toys not looking like the cartoon, Hasbro fixed the problem. They made the cartoon identical to the toys, right down to the huge screws in the shoulders. That wasn't the solution people wanted. We wanted realistic looking toys, not toy looking cartoons.

 

my favorite is when a aussie sounding plane gets shot..groans and crashes...still in plane mode and not a scratch on him...WTF???

cybertron, and the animated series now showing have been dumbed down to the age level of 3 year old TARDS!!!

 

The technique of animation used in Energon and Cybertron were the same as the zoids series. Zoids animations sequence was much, much, much better. For robotic animal like forms, they moved like a real one.

 

Hey, the Energon series is perfectly accurate. Here in Minnesota, all snowmobiles are capable of interstellar flight. That feature comes STANDARD.  

 

Do they yodel?

One of the hallmarks of the Unicron Trilogy toys was a high level of sculpted detail (whether it was really needed or not). By comparison, Classics have less detail, for they were designed to be specifically G1 characters. As for durability, they're all designed with the same kids toy safety in mind, so how can Cybertron toys be less durable?

The toys are only a year apart, people, not like Classics is the apex of toy design from a decade or two later.

That happens in just about every Transformers cartoon. That isn't dumbing down.

Yes, and by comparison you are very mature, aren't you? How's the hobby of hanging around in a children's toy franchise going for you?

 

Some of the toys were cool, but the show was garbage. The characters may have just come out and said " BUY ME"!!!!!

 

Yeah the shows here rrible. But the toys were cool (Cybertron is the best Mainline ever IMO and Energon had some great toys as well.)

 

I'm really beginning to be sick and tired of people BASHING CYBERTRON!!! I LOVE Armada AND Cybertron, Energon was crap due to a horrid dub and rushed production and plot. There is abseloutely nothing wrong with TFC's designs, they are supposed to be; in my opinion... advanced designs as compared to the mass-shifting G1 stuff. Atleast Cybertron looks better than Animated. Why does every fanboy has to bash the Japanese stuff cuz' it ain't "Gee-Wun?" Crap like this pisses me off.

Wow..... has anyone at all ever seen the subbed Japanese version, Galaxy Force? If you haven't, WATCH IT! There are alternatives!

 

AS far as toys are concerned, Armada was CRAP while Energon and Cybertron were very cool. Energon I loved because of the homage fest and Cybertron simply rocked IMO. Show wise Armada started TERRIBLY and ended pretty good. Energon began good but then DRAGGED on. Cybertron just had cool stylization with little backbone. They all kept me entertained so long as I didn't sit through an entire MARATHON of them.

 

Yello everybody! maybe because I was drunk at the time my point wasn't too clear, I will try again as quite a few responses seemed to take it as me attacking the toys themselves.

I never said the toys themselves were bad (I have a few cybertron toys, the Giant Starscream is one of my favorites).

My main point was suposed to be that I couldn't get into those shows because of the fact that on the shows themselves they looked like a bunch of toys fighting each other (like I believe someone else mentioned about seeing giant screws in their shoulders).

I just think they could have taken some small liberties at least with the animation and not looked so blocky in style and movement. Watching them fighting and especially running around looked really, really bad.

 

Drunk or not, the point's a totally valid one. Cybertron desperately needed to take a LITTLE bit of artistic license with the molds, but they didn't - and so we get ridiculous things like the push-button that spins Evac's rotors being completely visible on what is supposed, fictionally, to be a REAL helicopter.

As for Energon, hell, the TF Wiki article that FFN linked to isn't even mockery - it's statement of fact.

 

Because most of the Japanese writers could not write Transformers fiction if their lives depended on it? That's why so many people bash Japanese Transformers fiction, because they're shithouse. Also, due to a peculiar quirk in asian television, they're serialised. That means they're stretching out an already thin plot over many episodes, which generally leads to meandering plotlines that go nowhere, or excessive padding ("Okay, now to get Speedia's Planet Force, you have to race me in the preliminary preparational lap, then the preparation lap, then the after preparation lap. Then you'll need to beat me the local derby race's preliminary preparation grand prix, which is followed by the derby grand prix races 1 through 217. After that...")

When Transformers franchises accompanied by western-written fiction reportedly do better in Japan (assuming minimum 'adaptations' of them by Takara) than the franchises with Japanese-written TF fiction, you know you're in trouble.

Galaxy Force isn't any better than Cybertron. All you'd be doing is listening to a language you can't understand while reading captions that keep saying something like "CONVOY-TACHI FIGHTS FOR GREAT JUSTICE!". Yes, I did watch Galaxy Force all the way through and I was bored shitless.

 

and the Megatron looked like crap too (cybertron). I love megatron but hated his design in cybertron.

I liked his energon design but it suited Galvatron a lot more then Megatron.

 

Maybe that's why I like watching them. I enjoy a moving hasbro product catalog.

great quote by the way. I laughed.

 

Haven't read threw the thread, so don't know if any of these opinions have been posted yet. Also, not attacking you, just offering my opinion (maybe with a little fact thrown in) on the points you've brought up in your first post.

Sounds like a bad vendor at a football game or something...

The shows were basically meant as long toy commercials, so the closer the animation models and the toys look to each other, the better they toys will probably sell (in theory anyways).

Energon's vehicles, imo, were ment to look futuristic. Kinda like it was a continuation of Armada (imo it isn't, and I'm one of few who doesn't say AEC when talking about the three shows), and in the future. Cybertron on the other hand, you've got me there, though there were a couple that looked like real vehicles. Crosswise, Red Alert, Hot Shot, and Thundercracker are great examples.

The Classics line didn't have a show, comic book, or anything for that matter for the toys to go off of. Also, I've never seen a jet that looked like any one of the seekers, other than the shape of the Starscream mold.

1. Not G1= Not restricted to G1 names, designs, etc..
2. They haven't been able to use the trademark in a looong time, so they've been using the next best thing to it.

 

Ooops..double post...

 

Are you confusing Cybertron with Energon for you to say that in your opinion it wasn't a continuation of Armada? If not, I don't see how you could believe that considering the same characters from Armada reappear in Energon, older yet not wiser. If there's continuity problems then it's the fault of our friends in the East for sticking their oar in. All three have always been developed as a trilogy, and even TakaraTomy have retconned Galaxy Force back into the continuity after taking it out.

About a quarter of the Cybertron line (mostly the Earth vehicles) were based upon real vehicles, genericised or made more 'toyetic'.

Hasbro lost Skyfire to Mattel I believe, back in 2003, which is why Energon Skyblast wasn't named as such.

They last used the trademark Skyfire on RID Skyfire.

 

Just my personal opinion. While I do see a good amount of similarities, I still think that Energon isn't a continuation of Armada.

Ah...I knew they lost it to someone, but didn't know who or when.

 

True that, it just gets better and better.