The Shade Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 The original Trilogy yes... he originally submitted it was one big movie, but it was too long so he broke up and expanded on the first act. And judging by the fact that the Episode IV was added in pretty soon after the original release, it's rather obvious that he planned on 6 parts by the time he got to Empire. But obviously he didn't put too much thought into the first three at that time (yeah they'll be about Luke's dad turning evil. yeah!) but I doubt there was much more then that... with the contraditions retcons and barely patched together explanations... but the original trilogy... of course he planned that. The episode 4 was only added on screen in a re-release from 1981, after it was decided that Empire was going to be Episode 5. While Lucas may have planned to have 3, 6, 9, or 12 films all along, the stories themselves were always being made up as he went along. It's the same with any series. You do one storyline movie at a time. If you don't believe me, check out some of the reviews for the very first Empire Strikes Back screenplay from Leigh Bracket: virtually nothing is the same as what we saw on screen. This new Transformers franchise is no different. They're making it up as they go along. There is no grand plan or cosmic design.
big F Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 This is something I`ve been thinking of for a day or so now. Although I have yet to see the film (thanks U.K film release date) I was thinking about the next films TF`s. Theres been a lot of bad press and fanboy hate for the designs like WTF is that suposed to turn into etc. So to service that and also help the likes of Hasbro knock out easy to make kiddie friendly toys. What they could do is say that the Alspark makes new characters out of everyday earth machines now If I am right doesnt the All Spark cause an Cell phone and a games console to become living transformers. These are very simple transformations more akin to the G1 and G2 era. Therefore whats to say the new "G2" film bots wouldnt be the same. That would fix things for sure These Feral bots are only lawless and wild as they dont know what they are suposed to be in the same way as a new born baby dosent know its gonna be a scientist when it grows up.
CoryHolmes Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 There is no grand plan or cosmic design. Aside from making gobs and gobs of money, you mean With the amount of money its made so far, at least one sequel is all but assured.
myk Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Theres been a lot of bad press and fanboy hate for the designs... Die a bloody death, fanboys. The new designs are fine. Just what do they want to see up on the big screen anyway, this:
eugimon Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Die a bloody death, fanboys. The new designs are fine. Just what do they want to see up on the big screen anyway, this: QFT.
Radd Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Where's Waldo? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/4987042...b21368b11_o.jpg Seriously though, the designs weren't enough to cause me not to enjoy the movie, but they're not "fine". Whoever created the designs would have been flunked out of design fundamentals 101 if these had been turned in as their final project. That image illustrates the two big issues in the designs. Far too busy, and no recognizable silhouette. Die a bloody death, fanboys. The new designs are fine. Just what do they want to see up on the big screen anyway, this: Classic case of a false dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't like the designs in the movie does not necessarily make them a fanboy.
eugimon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Where's Waldo? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/4987042...b21368b11_o.jpg Seriously though, the designs weren't enough to cause me not to enjoy the movie, but they're not "fine". Whoever created the designs would have been flunked out of design fundamentals 101 if these had been turned in as their final project. That image illustrates the two big issues in the designs. Far too busy, and no recognizable silhouette. Classic case of a false dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't like the designs in the movie does not necessarily make them a fanboy. That picture is also misleading, the bots are stacked in front of each other, and their colors are washed out, and they're posed in such a way that their profiles are obscured. It's very easy to make out one bot from another in the movie.
Radd Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 The fact that you even pointed out "the bots are stacked in front of each other" is telling. Yes, you never see a bunch of them grouped together in the movie, but that doesn't make it less of an issue, especially if we're hoping for bigger, more epic movies in the future. The poses have little to do with obscuring their profiles. Can you honestly say you have a clear mental image of Barricade's profile from the movie? Starscream's? Frenzy's? Anyone? I stand by every single point.
eugimon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Uhm, yeah, they each have strong and unique profiles. and in the movie, you do see the autobots grouped together. in fact, after they land and take their earth forms, they spend a great deal of time grouped together. And they're very easy to tell apart. starscream, blackout, they all have distinct shapes from one another. The one place the decepticon designs have an issue is that their color palette is very close to one another, but this has a lot to do with the fact that they all have military alt forms. The autobots are very clearly delineated by color. And no point would you mistake ratchet for bumblebee or any other autobot. or decepticon, for that matter.
Chowser Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I think I missed it, did Starscream survive? Will he be the next Decepticon leader in the sequel?
eugimon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 during the credits, there's a shot of him leaving the earth's atmosphere. he'll be back.
myk Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Classic case of a false dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't like the designs in the movie does not necessarily make them a fanboy. Classic case of you "not reading the previous posts." Big F had mentioned "bad press" in the UK from fanboys who did not like the designs. My post was merely in response to that particular entry regarding the fanboys. I am hardly a "fan" of the new designs myself, however I find them to be "fine" in what they represent: futuristic, off-world, machine-life forms that are unlike anything ever encountered. As for those who feel that the designs are "too busy," I'll agree on that one. You could almost go blind looking at any movie-bot for more than 2 seconds. Unrecognizable though? Hardly. At least, I didn't have any trouble discerning who was who or what was what. They're trying to portray robotic/mechanical life forms from another planet. Who is to say that their bodies shouldn't appear that way? Only geocentric arrogance would require that these bots have bodies that appeal to human aesthetics. Ultimately, just how much more simple and less "busy" should the designs be? Once again I give you the alternative: Edited July 13, 2007 by myk
Chowser Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 during the credits, there's a shot of him leaving the earth's atmosphere. he'll be back. Crap, someone told me to stick around for the credits, but we had to be back at the academy by 9:30 or we would be locked out and I haven't had much luck picking electronic locks.
eugimon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Crap, someone told me to stick around for the credits, but we had to be back at the academy by 9:30 or we would be locked out and I haven't had much luck picking electronic locks. you didn't miss much. two funny scenes with Sam's parents, and then the SS shot.
LL Cool VF1J Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Seriously though, the designs weren't enough to cause me not to enjoy the movie, but they're not "fine". Whoever created the designs would have been flunked out of design fundamentals 101 if these had been turned in as their final project. That image illustrates the two big issues in the designs. Far too busy, and no recognizable silhouette. Classic case of a false dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't like the designs in the movie does not necessarily make them a fanboy. The designs are decent, but alittle busy. I could recognize each character by there silhouette. If you can not recocognize each character by there silhouette then you need glasses or laser eye surgery. Come on, bumblebee, Optimus, Megs, SS, not recognizable, what?
JB0 Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 As for those who feel that the designs are "too busy," I'll agree on that one. You could almost go blind looking at any movie-bot for more than 2 seconds. Unrecognizable though? Hardly. At least, I didn't have any trouble discerning who was who or what was what.I spent a while confusing Ironhide for Barricade in the final battle. Then remembered Barricade was MIA, so it had to be Ironhide. It helped tha tboth designs featured lots of black, and wheels on the shoulders. They're trying to portray robotic/mechanical life forms from another planet. Who is to say that their bodies shouldn't appear that way? Only geocentric arrogance would require that these bots have bodies that appeal to human aesthetics. Ultimately, just how much more simple and less "busy" should the designs be? Once again I give you the alternative: Speaking of geocentric arrogance... 2 arms. 2 legs. 2 elbows. 2 knees. 2 hands. 10 fingers. 2 eyes. 1 mouth. And in Ratchet's case, 1 nose(Seriosuly, WTF? A nose?) They're ALREADY slaves to human aesthetics. And hyper-advanced robots that can change their physical form on a moment's notice just by looking at another machine can't ALSO alter physical appearance between vehicle and robot modes? There's no real reason for the large assortment of vehicle parts lovingly studded across various parts of the Transformer anatomy in the movie aside form "Look at us! We're sticking cylinder heads on the thighs BECAUSE WE CAN!". The alternative you present is more aesthetically appealing, though limited in posability(and of course, those designs were never illustrated to match the toys in fiction partially for that reason). Though you've intentionally pulled out the worst of the bunch and presented an imaginary either-or situation. There are 3 different options in this photo. One of which met Mr. Bay's requirements for no mass shifting(a rule he failed to pass to ILM, but.... whatever).
GutsAndCasca Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I haven't read any of this thread so I have no idea what anyone is talking about nor do I care. I just wanted to say that I saw the movie a couple nights ago with my wife and some friends, and it kicked AZZ. I was VERY impressed. I thought it would be horrible, like I've heard Spiderman 3 was. I was scared going into that theatre, but rest assured, it was a f--king cool movie, with the awesomest CG I've EVER seen in my life. I hope the sequel comes close to being this good.
Radd Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Classic case of you "not reading the previous posts." Big F had mentioned "bad press" in the UK from fanboys who did not like the designs. My post was merely in response to that particular entry regarding the fanboys. I am hardly a "fan" of the new designs myself, however I find them to be "fine" in what they represent: futuristic, off-world, machine-life forms that are unlike anything ever encountered. As for those who feel that the designs are "too busy," I'll agree on that one. You could almost go blind looking at any movie-bot for more than 2 seconds. Unrecognizable though? Hardly. At least, I didn't have any trouble discerning who was who or what was what. They're trying to portray robotic/mechanical life forms from another planet. Who is to say that their bodies shouldn't appear that way? Only geocentric arrogance would require that these bots have bodies that appeal to human aesthetics. Ultimately, just how much more simple and less "busy" should the designs be? Once again I give you the alternative: That last sentence was placed as a separate paragraph because it was not directly pointed at you as the "false dichotomy" statement was. I apologize if that was not clear. However, a lot of people do seem to be under the impression that you're a fanboy if you're not head over heels in love with Bay designs. From both a design and aesthetic standpoint I dislike them. I enjoyed the movie though. However, they do not all have clear and easily recognizable silhouettes, and are so cluttered that when overlapped, you have the situation the image I posted illustrated. I do agree this was less a problem for the Autobots because some, like Jazz, were more similar in design to the "classic" Transformers aesthetic and not nearly so busy as the others, and they all had very different colours. I never said it was difficult to tell who was who, nor did I even insinuate that. I apologize if somehow people got that from my statements. I also am not talking about "realistic" ideas on what alien robots would look like, I speaking (and I believe I've stated this several times now) from a design standpoint. Art education background and all that. Finally, as JBO has also stated, you seem hell bent on this ridiculous idea that it's a black and white, either or, situation when that is certainly not the case (JBO gave a single example of a third alternative, but even 3 alternatives are not the limit). While I understand eugimon's and other's arguments (what I've pointed out about the designs I still stand by as true, but ultimately a sense of aesthetic preference and artistic style must be considered as well and there is nothing wrong with that) this "it's either Bay's designs, or the G1 Bumblebee toy design" argument does your position absolutely no favours. Back on the topics of silhouettes, what I mean is if you toss a random character's silhouette onto a sheet of paper, it more resembles a rorschach inkblot test than a character. If you're artistically inclined, it would be difficult to cull a character's silhouette from memory and put it to paper. Hence the complaints of "crumpled tin foil" and "car wreck character designs" that crop up when discussing the movie. Again, I should maybe point out, I'm not saying that the Bay designs are objectively wrong and that no one at all should like them, I'm simply pointing out that there are very solid reasons why people wouldn't like them, reasons that would not make those people whinging G1 fanboys. There are certain art and design fundamentals that exist because they tend to appeal to broad numbers of people for specific reasons, and the movie designs seem to ignore those. As others have pointed out, it is perhaps intentional to make them seem more "alien". That reasoning will not make them any more appealing to those who do not like them. Edited July 13, 2007 by Radd
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Saw the movie. Would have prefferred the good ole g1 idea of the autobots fighting a resistance against the decepticons over generations and passing leadership on to lead the autobots to freedom. The autobots would get beaten due to not being based on the military hardware line, and as a result they practice the art of stealth. The most successful technique being the reconfiguration of their form from a robot to that of a vehicle to kind of blend in with the city they would fight in and secretly spy on the decepticons as harmless vehicles. Disguised as consumer products like cars and trucks, which would not arouse any suspicion, they could get the surprise on the more firepower-heavy decepticons, and eventually win the war. That is until the decepticons copy thier techniques and begin to dominate again forcing the autobots to flee thier home planet and search for resources on other planets to continue the retaking of planet cybertron from the decepticons. Like the empire that is chasing the rebel forces at the begining of star wars, the autobots have to fight their way out of a situation (think of a car chase but in space) and end up crashing on our planet earth which is where they lay dorment for millions of years. Yeah yeah, the movie is not g1 but to me the above story explains the whole reason they even need to transform at least and if we could turn back time, we would all prefer this. I liked the humour, the cg, the flow of the animation, and pacing of the movie, but did not like the lack of character development or the lack of a dramatic building up towards the end with megatron. It just seemed like they missed an opportunity to have a prime vs megatron fight with both of them trying to persuade and reason with each other about why their ideal is the right one. Think of the scene in gangs of new york where you had the leader of the two gangs face off against each other amidst a lot of fighting between the other lesser followers who can't fight as well and/or don't really stand out that much. That's the humanoid equivalent of what I wanted to see in the transformers movie! It should be a story about prime and megatron and the eternal hatred between two tribes of robot smashing each other to pieces with no end. The autobots would fight with honor, while the decepticons would use all the dirty tricks in the book to have their way only to be betrayed by those wo seek to gain the control of the army for themselves through assassination attempts or just revenge. Both sides should take heavy casualties (not one side winning without much effort or sacrifices) and this would be the theme of the never-ending battle between the autobots fighting to free cybertron and the decepticons fighting to gain control of cybertron which would then allow them to use their military might to rule over other defenceless worlds and eventually conquer the galaxy. What I would like to see is the decepticons actually having their way and having the autobots play the defence for the first two movies and then in the third, the gradual take over of power as they catch up to the decepticons in building up their forces to finally beat them at their own game and force them off cybertron. This won't live up to g1 but what it did show, it presented it with nice photorealistic cg that is worth paying money just to see it all. I would say I liked the movie as a standalone science fiction movie, but not as I would have liked to see it as transformers. It's just my G1 bias. Having said that the action was very well done. Just as I would have imagined the robots to look if they were these real alien robots fighting each other and trying to rip each other apart. One thing I would have loved to see is the energy axe and energy mace haha. Have prime and megatron project a ancient magic energy weapon that only the leaders of the two sides can wield to fight each other one on one which is the final confrontation to determine who is the superior fighter. Of course even though it is a death match prime's compassion gets in the way after he wins and megatron as we all expect interprets this as prime being weak (true warriors kill each other and finish their opponent off, not shake hands and congratulate, putting faith in the other to not take advantage of the niceness) and kill him from behind which leads to an all out fight between both sides and the end of movie 1 as the autobots try to select a new leader. Movie two would be all about how the autbots cope without their leader and loss of hope, as a dark horse arises to take control to substitute as leader. Eventually that allows prime to return in a 3rd movie and come in with a dramatic entrance to finish what he started. It's deviated too far for g1 fans to expect that though but I will still see the next movie/s anyway for the action. Edited July 13, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
Fit For Natalie Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 The 2009 Deluxe Bumblebee toy is AWESOME, you guys. The most accurate transforming BB toy, well articulated and detailed. Clear freaking windows, too. Where's Waldo? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/4987042...b21368b11_o.jpg Seriously though, the designs weren't enough to cause me not to enjoy the movie, but they're not "fine". Whoever created the designs would have been flunked out of design fundamentals 101 if these had been turned in as their final project. That image illustrates the two big issues in the designs. Far too busy, and no recognizable silhouette. Classic case of a false dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't like the designs in the movie does not necessarily make them a fanboy. Alex Jaeger is quite a good ILM designer. He designed the Akira, Steamrunner, Norway and Saber class starships from Star Trek: First Contact, you know. I give him automatic awesome points for that because those designs are very different from the Star Trek norm (ie, not just like the Enterprise), yet familiar. The fact that you even pointed out "the bots are stacked in front of each other" is telling. Yes, you never see a bunch of them grouped together in the movie, but that doesn't make it less of an issue, especially if we're hoping for bigger, more epic movies in the future. The poses have little to do with obscuring their profiles. Can you honestly say you have a clear mental image of Barricade's profile from the movie? Starscream's? Frenzy's? Anyone? I stand by every single point. Yeah, I do. Barricade is the predominantly black guy with the long ass arms with wheels near his hands and shoulders. Starscream is the guy with the wide torso and goat legged stance. Frenzy is the small, extremely thin and hollow guy who looks vaugley like General Grevious on crack. Ironhide is the guy with the slanted shoulderpads and huge cannons on his arms. Blackout is the guy with the helicopter cockpit for a torso and and rather hollow arms and legs with a big thing (rotor mechanism housing) behind and above his head. I spent a while confusing Ironhide for Barricade in the final battle. Then remembered Barricade was MIA, so it had to be Ironhide. It helped tha tboth designs featured lots of black, and wheels on the shoulders. Speaking of geocentric arrogance... 2 arms. 2 legs. 2 elbows. 2 knees. 2 hands. 10 fingers. 2 eyes. 1 mouth. And in Ratchet's case, 1 nose(Seriosuly, WTF? A nose?) They're ALREADY slaves to human aesthetics. But Ironhide doesn't have wheels on his shoulders. They're under his arms. TFs can smell, so they have noses. They can also eat. TFs are usually depicted with teeth. Whether this is to facilitate in helping them eat energy sources or merely artistic license to help with human-like expressions, they've always been there. One thing I would have loved to see is the energy axe and energy mace haha. Have prime and megatron project a ancient magic energy weapon that only the leaders of the two sides can wield to fight each other one on one which is the final confrontation to determine who is the superior fighter. Megs and Prime do have their weapons (sorta). Meg's right hand is his physical mace on a chain, which he uses initially when he breaks free of Sector Seven, then again against Sam on the roof. Prime's sword is a representation of his axe, but more in line with his King Arthur and 'noble knight' theme that the writers wanted him to have.
Twoducks Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Today’s art and design fundamentals did not appeal to broad numbers of people when they were fist created for the specific reason that they were new. New means different and most people don't like changes at first. Art history is full of this (when someone did something new or different, acceptance wasn’t always there at first). The theatres are packed and the biggest complaints are about Bay wonky camera, so the designs aren’t being rejected. I'm sure that the designs will look more familiar/clear/whatever over time. If the best prove that the designs aren't recognizable enough is just a crappy photoshop made on purpose to look like clutter, then I'm sure they do the job just fine. If I photoshop a bunch of G1 characters together in a cluttery way and show them to someone who hasn't seen a boxy robot in his life, he will find them just as much a car wreck and unclear. Alternator designs look good... for 6" toys and cute stop motion videos: Anything bigger than that would look like a giant cosplayer or something from Power Rangers. You take the alternators, break up the car parts into smaller elements that can sit closer to the body (thus more freedom of movement), use some sharp and jagged lines to make them more uncommon looking (read “alien”) and you get the bayformers. So really, they are not that far away. On haters: The whiny hater fanboys will have to grow up or choke on their hate: the movie is raking in the dough with a lot of happy movie goers (who don't get their panties on a knot over a crappy old cartoon), so we'll see more “bayformers”. Moreover, since Hollywood likes to copy what sells, "car wreck robot designs" will be popping up in future big robot movies like leather wearing super heroes did before that. The childhood raping has just begun. I say rape them good.
Radd Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Gah, I'm not trying to get personal and say the guy is a bad designer, don't change the topic like that. I'm made a point about these specific designs.Also, being able to cite a vague description does not give any indication that you have a clear mental image of a character's silhouette and would be able to pick it out from a lineup of similar, yet distinctly different, silhouettes. Move parts around and add bits to G1 cartoon designs, just as an example, and you're far more likely to notice than if someone does the same thing with the movie designs. But fine, people disagree, I'll drop the topic. None of what you said about JBO's post really had much to do with his point, other than possibly strengthening it.
Radd Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Today’s art and design fundamentals did not appeal to broad numbers of people when they were fist created for the specific reason that they were new. New means different and most people don't like changes at first. Art history is full of this (when someone did something new or different, acceptance wasn’t always there at first). Er, not really quite the same thing. Different periods of art, and the sort of art considered "acceptable", had more to do with ideas as to what made art "art". Like realism giving way to impressionism. *edit to try and make my point more clear* This issue has more to do with the basic idea that the more complex and cluttered you make a design, the more difficult it is for a person to clearly discern it in their mind. This is similar to why telephone numbers are only 10 numbers long. If you make everyone's telephone numbers 20 digits long, will people eventually come to accept this and that will make it easier to remember twice as many digits per telephone number? If the best prove that the designs aren't recognizable enough is just a crappy photoshop made on purpose to look like clutter, then I'm sure they do the job just fine. If I photoshop a bunch of G1 characters together in a cluttery way and show them to someone who hasn't seen a boxy robot in his life, he will find them just as much a car wreck and unclear. I highly doubt this is the case. Take an image of a bunch of G1 characters overlapping in a similar way to that movie image, and even remove the colours entirely, you will still be able to clearly make out each individual character. Break it down to linart, you'll still be able to clearly pull the characters apart. The simpler designs are, the easier it is to pull them apart and see the individual shapes, this is a level of complexity issue. Also, I seriously doubt JBO is suggestion that the Alternators designs, as is in toy form, blown up and done in CG should make acceptable movie designs. More like he suggested expanding on the ideas and aesthetics of those designs, and their ability to transform without mass shifting. Or, more to the real point he was making, there are a possible alternatives other than simply "either Bay's designs, or the worst of G1 toy designs!" Edited July 13, 2007 by Radd
Twoducks Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Er, not really quite the same thing. Different periods of art, and the sort of art considered "acceptable", had more to do with ideas as to what made art "art". Like realism giving way to impressionism. *edit to try and make my point more clear* This issue has more to do with the basic idea that the more complex and cluttered you make a design, the more difficult it is for a person to clearly discern it in their mind. And yet the more practical designs fall out of grace to overcomplicated stuff. Just look at architectural designs. They keep moving from symmetrical lines to asymmetrical complications and back again. The current fad or tendency or “artsy take” influences how we perceive. If we are used to complex stuff then complex stuff seems normal. An industrial engineer will have fewer problems discerning bayformer designs than someone that only makes pizzas. This is similar to why telephone numbers are only 10 numbers long. If you make everyone's telephone numbers 20 digits long, will people eventually come to accept this and that will make it easier to remember twice as many digits per telephone number? Actually, yes. It would be a waste of time typing all those numbers but if they are constantly needed, then people would remember more digits. They would be exercising their memory and thus would remember more digits the same way remembering ten digits makes remembering less than ten numbers easier. I highly doubt this is the case. Take an image of a bunch of G1 characters overlapping in a similar way to that movie image, and even remove the colours entirely, you will still be able to clearly make out each individual character. Break it down to linart, you'll still be able to clearly pull the characters apart. The simpler designs are, the easier it is to pull them apart and see the individual shapes, this is a level of complexity issue. Then why can I easily pick out all the characters from the photoshop even with all the manipulation? Easy: because I’m familiar with the designs. As simple as the lines are, if you group a bunch on different stuff together you will fist see them as a whole because that's how human perception works (that's why we can see the G1 tunes in the fist place, because we group the little 2D individual lines together in our heads). Movies and tv are just tricks of perception. Just some google and greytones and you get: Do you perceive all the individual TF as individual characters AT ONCE? No, right? You pick them out one by one after your brain processes the information the same way I do when I see the bayformer clutter (and I don’t need a clear image in my head of every screw and bolt to recognize them). The fist you’ll see are Megs and Prime because they are bigger and their shapes are more centred. And the time that it takes to make out a familiar complicated bayformer design and a familiar normal tf design is the same or just milliseconds apart. Also, I seriously doubt JBO is suggestion that the Alternators designs, as is in toy form, blown up and done in CG should make acceptable movie designs. More like he suggested expanding on the ideas and aesthetics of those designs, and their ability to transform without mass shifting. Or, more to the real point he was making, there are a possible alternatives other than simply "either Bay's designs, or the worst of G1 toy designs!" Yes I know, that's way a point out that if you make believable the alternator toys you get something close to bay's stuff. My point is that both designs aren’t so far apart.
Radd Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Personally, I think the greytoned illustration art only strengthens my point. Though I'm not familiar with most of the designs present in at least two of those images, I can pick out many of the individual characters rather quickly. When the characters are more complex, such as some of the more organic looking designs in the top two images, it becomes more difficult. The simpler, more iconic characters stand out much more easily. Still, in all those images, I suspect the average person would find it easier to pick out characters, but I'll let the point rest for now. Maybe you're right, and when the busier style becomes more prevalent (and I agree with you on the point that we'll see more of this as the TF movie has been so successful) ideas will change and I'll be eating crow on that. I disagree on the digits, thing, though, but I cannot think of a way to really prove the point either way since it's unlikely that we'll move to longer phone numbers any time soon. One could point at the web as an example, almost no one remembers multiple lengthy web addresses (I hardly think committing one late 90's style geocities web addy to memory only to forget it later once it's no longer of interest counts), but one could also argue that no one needs to since we bookmark everything we want to keep handy. Also, I think you can expand on the Alternator designs without moving into Bayformer territory. The aesthetic style is very dissimilar. I mean, the illustrations made for the Alternators packaging expend on the designs, yet don't look anything like the movie designs. Nothing says CG must look a certain way either. Still, I think I'm getting a bit too argumentative myself, so I'll leave the last words in this discussion to those who past after this. Edited July 13, 2007 by Radd
big F Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Maybe the next gen Bayformers will be a little more Earthy and less Cybertronian in design. That is unless someone digs some more Cybertronian ones outta the dirt somewhere. Edited July 15, 2007 by big F
eugimon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 doubt it, the end of the movie had prime calling the autobots to earth, and SS leaving earth, presumably to go bring more decepticons. We'll probably get a whole new big cast of new bots.
reddsun1 Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) LOL, that was great! Who says stop-motion animation is dead? Mad props to stop motion animators everywhere--the amts of sheer time, patience and dedication to ply their trade is worthy of respect. Those alternators actually make Transformers cool again, much the way they were to me as a child of the 80's. and oh yeah, the new TF themes SUCKS ASS compared to the original '86 ver. Yeah, that's right--I went there, I'm actually choosing the 80's hair-rock crapola music.... Edited July 13, 2007 by reddsun1
Sumdumgai Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I don't like the new TF designs, despite liking the movie. The designs were too busy with too much crap that made it difficult for me to recognize the characters. I recognized them more by color than by any distinguishing characteristics. I didn't even notice the Transformers Theme in the movie! Yeah, it would have kicked ass if they had gone with the style of the old '86 movie theme (since they couldn't exactly re-use it without a Unicron being in the movie).
CoryHolmes Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 and oh yeah, the new TF themes SUCKS ASS compared to the original '86 ver. Yeah, that's right--I went there, I'm actually choosing the 80's hair-rock crapola music.... I don't think you'll get anyone arguing this point
baronv Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I'm fine with the new movie designs once I accepted that the movie was not about doing a faithful reproduction of the G1 cartoon. I think if Bay did want to go with more "alien" looks to the TFs, he could have at least gone in the direction of the War Within comics/Titanium toy line. Those TFs meged an alien/futuristic look with G1 designs. p.s. I also agree that it would've been nice to have some type of TF theme in the movie, the one by Linkin Park wasn't anything special or even related to the movie. Michael Bay, for TF: Part II, lemme suggest....You got the touch...by Fatboy Slim or by RZA from Wu tang. Yeaaah boooyyy.
Fit For Natalie Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 LOL, that was great! Who says stop-motion animation is dead? Mad props to stop motion animators everywhere--the amts of sheer time, patience and dedication to ply their trade is worthy of respect. Those alternators actually make Transformers cool again, much the way they were to me as a child of the 80's. and oh yeah, the new TF themes SUCKS ASS compared to the original '86 ver. Yeah, that's right--I went there, I'm actually choosing the 80's hair-rock crapola music.... They didn't use that song anywhere in the movie, the actual main theme music of the movie (and also the Autobots theme music) is a heroic orchestrated piece. I love it.
Scream Man Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 i cant wait to see the movie again. And i didnt mind the movie desigbns either. Even Primes exposed mouth didnt bother me.
JB0 Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 But Ironhide doesn't have wheels on his shoulders. They're under his arms. TFs can smell, so they have noses. They can also eat. TFs are usually depicted with teeth. Whether this is to facilitate in helping them eat energy sources or merely artistic license to help with human-like expressions, they've always been there. You would be making an excellent point if I was citing these as examples of bizarre deviations from traditional Transformers designs. UNFORTUNATELY, I wasn't. It was a counterpoint to this... They're trying to portray robotic/mechanical life forms from another planet. Who is to say that their bodies shouldn't appear that way? Only geocentric arrogance would require that these bots have bodies that appeal to human aesthetics. You argued the Bayformers didn't need to appeal to human aesthetics, since they were alien robots. I listed a number of ways they DO conform to human aesthetics, which are far more significant than lots of kibble poking out at odd angles. Scorponok was the only 'bot in the movie that WASN'T clearly human, and it was ANOTHER terrestrial animal. Moving on.... Alternator designs look good... for 6" toys and cute stop motion videos: Anything bigger than that would look like a giant cosplayer or something from Power Rangers. General style VS specific model? It's also interesting that you assume I meant the Alternators should've been used in the movie as-is. I cited the photo as THREE alternatives to the junkyard look, one of which was the Bumblebee that gets dragged out by everyone defending SkelePrime and company. Another IS be the Alternator, which was the primary subject of the photo. The THIRD example would be the Pretender core sitting under Shockwave's foot. I'm also far more of a realist than you give me credit for. I readily acknowledge that no toy design is suited for movie usage as-is. Among other things, the Alt. RX8 mold has a chest that sticks out to the 'bot's elbows. It was an example of general style. The design closest to working as-is was the Pretender. It's the best-proportioned, and has no major parts in the way of the limbs. It's only lacking in actual articulation, which is quite easy to add given the design. You take the alternators, break up the car parts into smaller elements that can sit closer to the body (thus more freedom of movement), use some sharp and jagged lines to make them more uncommon looking (read “alien”) and you get the bayformers. So really, they are not that far away. Except for the whole "use some sharp and jagged lines to make them more uncommon looking" bit, which was the whole reason I dragged the Alternators out in the first place. It's an illustration of the same concept done in a far more aesthetically appealing manner. So way to go at missing the point. And special bonus round! Just some google and greytones and you get: Do you perceive all the individual TF as individual characters AT ONCE? No, right? You pick them out one by one after your brain processes the information the same way I do when I see the bayformer clutter (and I don’t need a clear image in my head of every screw and bolt to recognize them). The fist you’ll see are Megs and Prime because they are bigger and their shapes are more centred. And the time that it takes to make out a familiar complicated bayformer design and a familiar normal tf design is the same or just milliseconds apart. Actually, I'm finding it VERY easy to pick out every single 'bot in your pics. Including all those wierd Prime/Megatron variants I've never seen before. DESPITE the lower contrast level in your pics. It takes a serious degree of concentration to pick a 'bot out of the movie design pic. All the broken jaggy edges make the designs run together, because there's no clearly visible difference between the edges of the 'bots and the .interior details. Case in point: Even though I know EXACTLY what it is, it looks an awful lot like Frenzy is growing out of Starscream's knee. Your example does a great job at illustrating why more solid designs are easier to pick out. The simpler lines give them a firmer outline.
Recommended Posts