Transformers: Age of Extinction - in theaters June 27, 2014

[Gui]

They were so alien, in fact, that they had two eyes above a horizontal mouth, with a functional nose in between.

And two five-fingered hands at the end of two arms. With an elbow between the shoulder and wrist at a perfect drinking distance.

And they pee. Out of the place where their two legs join their torso.

Why do people keep saying this? They weren't alien at all. They were perfectly standard humanoids with perfectly human proportions(except for Starscream, who was a bit of a hunchback) and some cosmetic disfiguration.

They're the Transformer equivalent of klingons. Just add some wrinkles and pretend that hides their inherent humanity.

[...]

Actually, if you take into account some recent scientific theories about alien life, it makes a lot of sense to get vaguely humanoid shapes, at least for intelligent being. It is all related to the brain in fact.

Because the brain cannot control efficiently a lot of limbs, their number is restricted to four, then that's two to walk/run and two to manipulate things with the hands that finish them and which are simply evolved feet.

Because the brain cannot work properly if it is at the same temperature than the body, it needs to be stored in a sort of limb which has to be outside of the body (ie the head).

The number of eyes is related to the mass of data the brain can compute: two being the minimum required to have a feel of depth, it is enough; same thing for the ears: you can't locate the source of a noise (ie a prey or a danger) if you have only one.

As for the placement of nose and mouth, the first is placed above the second because otherwise the ancestors without hands would have had some difficulties to eat.

So, yeah, in the end, aliens should look like us, at least in the overal shape.

But, of course, I don't think the guys from ILM took any of this into account when designing the Bayformers...

[peter]

Personally, I am sick of some of the G1 worship. Some treat it like it was perfect.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdPDQ6P2ypo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=du69Ud0hfpU

And one of the reasons why Casey Kasem left the show.....

http://images.wikia.com/transformers/images/c/cd/Carbombya_Marker.jpg

I don't think anyone is worshiping G1 the way you make it sound. I love G1, just as I love SDF Macross, but I certainly didn't expect them to keep it exactly like the original cartoon....I don't think anyone in their right mind is. The cartoon was dated (haha, just like many, many episodes of SDF Macross), and could definitely use an update. Dreamwave did a great job to bring G1 to the present, and many people think it could have been done in live-action CGI, but it didn't happen so some people gripe about it, not a big deal. If SDF Macross underwent the same changes that Bayformers did, there would be riots in the streets.

It's just that a lot of people were'nt happy with "House of Flying Daggers" in bot mode, haha!

And Dr. Gui, what have you been smoking? Are those your own theories or or someone else's loopy theories?

Actually, if you take into account some recent scientific theories about alien life, it makes a lot of sense to get vaguely humanoid shapes, at least for intelligent being. It is all related to the brain in fact.

Vaguely humanoid shape assuming they have a HUMAN brain.

Because the brain cannot control efficiently a lot of limbs, their number is restricted to four, then that's two to walk/run and two to manipulate things with the hands that finish them and which are simply evolved feet.

Because a HUMAN brain cannot control efficiently a lot of limbs, we are possibly restricted to four, nevermind theories of evolution.

Because the brain cannot work properly if it is at the same temperature than the body, it needs to be stored in a sort of limb which has to be outside of the body (ie the head).

Because a HUMAN brain, or at least a brain of Earth-borne physiology cannot function at a specific tempurature, it needs to be stored in a "head", but even if that theory applies to an alien brain, who dictates that the location of said "head" is in the same location as an earth-borne humanoid?

The number of eyes is related to the mass of data the brain can compute: two being the minimum required to have a feel of depth, it is enough; same thing for the ears: you can't locate the source of a noise (ie a prey or a danger) if you have only one.

Again, you're talking about a HUMAN BRAIN!!! Our idea of vision/sight is something most of us rely on so much, that we forget there are other senses that even some people (nevermind other members of the animal kinddom) have learned to use and rely on more than sight. Many aquatic life forms rely on sonar for guaging depth/distance.....I'm not even going to bother getting into the ears bit.

As for the placement of nose and mouth, the first is placed above the second because otherwise the ancestors without hands would have had some difficulties to eat.

Please tell me you don't think a toaster needs a nose or mouth. My car needs air and gas, but does it have a nose and mouth in relation and similar location of humans?

So, yeah, in the end, aliens should look like us, at least in the overal shape. But, of course, I don't think the guys from ILM took any of this into account when designing the Bayformers....

I'm sorry to poke fun at your post, but it was just too much to pass up man Anyway, it really doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate all those theories are, because the whole concept of Transformers is science-fiction/fantasy that was made to entertain......and I suppose it was a monetary success because people en masse were entertained.

Edited July 13, 2011 by peter

[knoted]

Ahhh...with TF4 talks the discussions about the designs, oh the designs, flare up again.

I don't think we can credit/blame Bay himself for the TF movie designs. He just greenlit or disapproved

what the designers & ILM came up with.

Personally, I love most movie TF designs, as well as G1 with which I grew up in the early 80's ( myself being from '78 ).

But since this trilogy established a visual standard already, I don't think a design reboot would

be a good idea.

Especially the variety of proportions of botmodes, is an enrichment to the franchise. Sure, fewer 'exposed internals' and fewer 'redundant wiring'

could evolve the botmode silhouettes to be a bit more of a tight aesthetic, but let's not lose the overall richness of shapes like movie 1 Bonecrusher,

Starscream, Mixmaster, Sideways, Blackout, Dino, Sideswipe, Jetfire etc.

Sure, Bay's direction is full of awful flaws, but his tools - the design teams, ILM and Hasbro - are not to blame. No reboot necessary.

Just insert a new Director, new screenplay and a new cast - lots of TF characters left to use.

Edited July 13, 2011 by knoted

[mikeszekely]

No reboot necessary.

That may be true. And, as has been pointed out, we're not going to get a reboot. There are just those of us who hoped, with Bay gone, that we might get a reboot, needed or not.

Personally, I love most movie TF designs

And you're not alone in liking them. But there are a lot of people who hate them. I number myself among them. I think they look like crap onscreen, and make for lousy toys to boot.

with TF4 talks the discussions about the designs, oh the designs, flare up again.

Because the potential for a reboot, no matter how quickly shot down, is the best shot at getting new designs, turning the discussion from "should they/shouldn't they reboot" to "they should reboot and come up with better designs/they shouldn't reboot because the current designs are awesome".

But since this trilogy established a visual standard already, I don't think a design reboot would be a good idea.

Unless you think that visual standard looks like model vehicles run through a blender and then glued back together in vaguely humanoid shapes with insect heads. Then a reboot with new designs is a great idea.

The problem with Bay's TFs is that the scripts are a piece of $hit, not the designs.

I'd say it's both.

Fandom bitched and moaned when TF Animated showed the radical new designs and the human characters. But the thing was well written and now Animated is missed.

Let me put this out in the open... I still don't like the designs from Animated, and I collected few of the toys. But you're absolutely right, Animated was very well-written, and most fans would have preferred another season of it to the new Prime cartoon. And certainly if the Bayformers movies were written better with memorable characters, then yeah, they'd be entertaining movies that'd make the designs easier to swallow. But I still wouldn't like them.

Conversely, Robots in Disguise had a weak story, silly characters, and juvenile jokes. The Bayformers movies are, faults aside, more entertaining. But it had some great designs, including my second-favorite Optimus Prime. Not keen on watching the show ever again, but I'd gladly fork over my money for re-issue or "Generations" versions of the toys.

Edited July 14, 2011 by mikeszekely

[Ghost Train]

[BeyondTheGrave]

IF they have humans in this one could they have different factions. Like those who side with the autobots or decepticons and those who hate them all.

I know alot of fans want a remake or re-imagining of the 86' movie but thats probably not going to happen.

[Archer]

Well, imho, for the discussion regarding designs for this new movie, I don't think new designs would be a very economical choice for the studio creating the movie, regardless of whether someone thinks they are good are not. The Bayformer designs aesthetics have been so very finely engraved into the mainstream society that anything outside of those aesthetics will probably be shot down by audiences far and wide.

Its much more risky, and has an extremely high probability of being a disaster for the studio responsible for this movie to attempt a new design scheme for the bots. Why waste so much money making new TF's when mainstream society eats these designs up.

Whether we like it or not, I don't think new designs are feasible in this scenario. Bayformers are now TRANSFORMERS. Not the G1 , beast wars, armada, energon, cybertron, or animated prime will be the real prime. Save for the full on hardcore fans, Optimus Prime will from now on always be the Semi truck forming cutlery, as some put it, shown on the big screen.

[mikeszekely]

Well, imho, for the discussion regarding designs for this new movie, I don't think new designs would be a very economical choice for the studio creating the movie, regardless of whether someone thinks they are good are not. The Bayformer designs aesthetics have been so very finely engraved into the mainstream society that anything outside of those aesthetics will probably be shot down by audiences far and wide.

See, I don't buy this argument at all. Can you imagine someone saying back in '06 or '07 that they shouldn't use the designs that you now claim to be "finely engraved into the mainstream society" because they're too different from the G1 designs that were not just the mainstream image of Transformers, but to this day deeply embedded in popular culture? And yet, despite giving Transformers a radical new look, it and its sequels have all gone on to be a huge box office successes. In fact, despite fair-to-poor reviews and coming off as sequel to the almost universally-panned Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon is only $45 million or so away from surpassing the first film.

The lesson to be learned from this is that people will pay to see giant robots smashing stuff. I don't think the "mainstream" cares as much about how said robots look as Transformers fans do.

Besides, a reboot with a new look would give Hasbro a chance to sell more toys instead of hoping that people will buy yet another Deluxe Bumblebee, and experience tells us that Hasbro will gladly kill off a cast of beloved characters to make room for new toys.

[BeyondTheGrave]

See, I don't buy this argument at all. Can you imagine someone saying back in '06 or '07 that they shouldn't use the designs that you now claim to be "finely engraved into the mainstream society" because they're too different from the G1 designs that were not just the mainstream image of Transformers, but to this day deeply embedded in popular culture? And yet, despite giving Transformers a radical new look, it and its sequels have all gone on to be a huge box office successes. In fact, despite fair-to-poor reviews and coming off as sequel to the almost universally-panned Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon is only $45 million or so away from surpassing the first film.

The G1 designs are mainly engraved into the minds of those who grew up watching the orignial series and movie.that group is now in their late 20 to early 40's.

Besides, a reboot with a new look would give Hasbro a chance to sell more toys instead of hoping that people will buy yet another Deluxe Bumblebee, and experience tells us that Hasbro will gladly kill off a cast of beloved characters to make room for new toys.

I think they may tweak the designs for a squeal/reboot. Aren't most of the Decepticons dead?

[TehPW]

Transformers as they appeared in the original G1 carton, movie or many comic adaptions would not translate well into a live action format.

With the way CG and even practical effects have evolved I seriously doubt the movie-going public would have made the Transformer live-action films as monetarily successful as they've been.

And don't forget that's why big budget blockbusters get made, not to satisfy the wants and needs of fanboys and girls. Hell, Serenity was a great example of that, it was a good show as Firefly and by a wing and a prayer got a theater release. As well liked as it was by fans and I think critics it didn't make the coin to continue the franchise in TV or movie form.

Sorry to all of the old-school fans, or fans of the old-school, that want to see Prime in all his G1 goodness, either from the cartoons or movies it just won't get butts into the seats. Stylized like Dreamwave or IDW or not.

Better of for worse you might as well cozy up to "Bay-formers" or similar designs or just let go of hope of seeing the type of Transformers movies you seem to want so badly.

And if part 4 gets made, or if they re-boot for the love of God I hope they don't put another screaming nerd in the lead role (looking at you Shia).

-b.

thats the point for several different genres that likely will never get a live action version. Macross, Robowreck (because of legal action that makes the properties radioactive), Battletech (because of its origins, potential radioactivity, and very narrow fan base)... even hollywood wont do another Gundam (though i think something gundam wqould make them money... say a 3 part live action version of Gundam Wing... twilight with mobile suits anyone?)... *sigh*

[EXO]

What the TF4 needs is the Bagger288!!!

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/azEvfD4C6ow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Keith]

thats the point for several different genres that likely will never get a live action version. Macross, Robowreck (because of legal action that makes the properties radioactive), Battletech (because of its origins, potential radioactivity, and very narrow fan base)... even hollywood wont do another Gundam (though i think something gundam wqould make them money... say a 3 part live action version of Gundam Wing... twilight with mobile suits anyone?)... *sigh*

If you're referring to G-Savoir, that was hardly Hollywood. it was more like straight to video Canadian.

[knoted]

looks like model vehicles run through a blender and then glued back together in vaguely humanoid shapes with insect heads.

I hope you can see for yourself, you made a pretty big generalization here.

The movie designs of which the fragmented aesthetic detracts from its silhouette are few :

- movie 1 Megatron

- movie 1 Scorponok | minor character

- movie 2 Ravage | minor character

All other movie designs are not that difficult to visually 'read'. What a lot of them DO share however, is a variety of not-exactly-humanoid proportions : imo, that's rather a good point. So, I can easily shoot down the argument of supposedly fragment/granulated designs being too messy to visually interpret.

The problem here is that some people want all TF's to stick to the exact humanoid proportion template. Which is even more odd here, since so many mecha do have those out-there proportions too, and then they accept it in anime but not in TF.

Heck, even movie 1 Megatron developed into DOTM Megatron who finally looks right, with a fitting earth altmode in a time when he cannot be a Walther P38 anymore. Insectoid faces ? Well, some but so do many other previous TF lines and characters like Sentinel Prime, Jetfire couldn't have more humanoid faces.

I think they look like crap onscreen, and make for lousy toys to boot.

Really ? Well, toyreviews are just opinions as well, but if you take a look at them with a less hateful pov :

These TF movie toys are relatively inexpensive and Hasbro managed to interpret the CGi designs into practical and innovative toy engineering. These toys have fantastic unique silhouettes and they're easy to read.

Edited July 14, 2011 by knoted

[Gui]

[...]

And Dr. Gui, what have you been smoking? Are those your own theories or or someone else's loopy theories?

[...]

Like I said in my previous post, it is a scientifically established theory, and what you think about it doesn't really interest me actually: between recognized experts and a big mouth on a forum, the choice is quickly done, you know, at least for the ones of us who can use their brain.

I'm sorry to poke fun at your post, [...]

You should have shut your mouth, then: this would have spared you the apologies...

[peter]

Like I said in my previous post, it is a scientifically established theory, and what you think about it doesn't really interest me actually: between recognized experts and a big mouth on a forum, the choice is quickly done, you know, at least for the ones of us who can use their brain.

You should have shut your mouth, then: this would have spared you the apologies...

I'm sorry to have peed in your cornflakes Dr. Gui but, FACTS can be scientifically established.....theories are just theories, especially ones that have more holes than Bayformers plots. Your experts are weak-sauce. It doesn't matter if what I think doesn't interest you (clearly it does), but when you spew silly notions like it makes sense aliens (non-biological robot aliens to boot) should have a humanoid configuration because of facts based on a human physiological brain, expect to get called out on it. Don't feel bad if you believed them though, it's easy to get mixed up between science, science-fiction and science-fantasy.

"Shut your mouth"? Well, I never...I revoke all my previous apologies to you, haha!

Edited July 14, 2011 by peter

[jwasko]

Concerning the whole "brains have an upper limit" issue...

Am I to understand that ants (with 6 limbs), spiders (, crabs (10), not to mention centipedes or millipedes are lugging around have 2 to ? many extra limbs just because...the extra weight keeps them in shape?

If you want to nitpick the fact that none of those animals have 10 fingers/toes on each limb...how about monkeys? They have five fingered hands with opposable thumbs, plus feet whose toes have a lot more dexterity than ours...and they have a prehensile tail.

On the other hand...I could see research showing that the humanoid form is the most efficient (as seen in Gui's statements about the brain, ears, and eyes).

I could be way off on all of that...I'm a chemist, after all, not a biologist. But if someone is going to insult someone else for questioning "scientifically established theories," that person should cite some publications in scientific journals.

Because, as a man once said, "between recognized experts and a big mouth on a forum, the choice is quickly done, you know, at least for the ones of us who can use their brain."

PS: Just to show that I'm not just picking on Gui...Peter, everything in science is (technically) just a theory that no one has been able to disprove yet. "Scientific fact" is just a phrase.

Edited July 14, 2011 by jwasko

[jwasko]

More on topic, summing up what I want from a TF4:

1 Differentiate the robots more (besides Prime and Bumblebee (though I think DOTM improved on this a little).

2 More G1 Decepticons (even if they are all seekers, at least it makes more sense than having 20 of each Constructicon).

3 Fewer alt-mode-less drones (again: more G1 Decepticons).

4 Pull back the camera during fights (again, I think DOTM improved on this a little compared to the other two).

5 More hands, less claws (see: Megatron, Starscream, Jazz)

And while I prefer IDW's updated G1/G1-esque stylings to the movies...and I would love to see an animated version of Last Stand of the Wreckers...I can't say that I completely despise the movie designs. HA Jazz is really awesome.

Edited July 14, 2011 by jwasko

[JB0]

PS: Just to show that I'm not just picking on Gui...Peter, everything in science is (technically) just a theory that no one has been able to disprove yet. "Scientific fact" is just a phrase.

This! Personal peeve, but scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory in general use.

What in general use is referred to as a theory, science calls a HYPOTHESIS.

Hence we have things like the THEORY of gravity.

[mikeszekely]

This! Personal peeve, but scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory in general use.

What in general use is referred to as a theory, science calls a HYPOTHESIS.

Hence we have things like the THEORY of gravity.

Might be a bad example. Gravity was considered a law (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation). The law of gravity fails to explain perturbations in Mercury's orbit, though, and was superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. And relativity doesn't work with quantum mechanics, leading to quantum gravity theory. Or loop quantum gravity, if you want to try to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.

[VT 1010]

When I first started reading this page, I was about to add my own rant about scientific theory vs. casual usage of the term theory. Anyway...

IIRC, part of the reason we don't have twenty limbs is because it's not very cost effective. Doing so would provide us with little survival benefit, yet we would have much greater energy requirements. Why don't we have three or even four eyes? It's because we have been able to efficiently get away with two for quite some time.

Think of it this way: You may have three arms, four legs, twenty eyes, and sonar. All of this added weight may make it more difficult for you to run from predators--particularly those with fewer limbs. What if you evolved to move quickly and evade those predators? You're now going to have to eat more to sustain that incredibly freaky body of yours. This is problematic when food and other resources are scarce. Contrast this with your more ape-like cousin. Though he can't do everything you can, he can do most of it and at half the energy cost--just enough to get by. It's only an evolutionary advantage if you can get away with it.

So how can this tie into humanoid looking aliens? Our current biological "configuration" is successful because it's the minimum we needed to get by. There are only so many ways to configure four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a mouth, etc. and this version has worked for us. It's not hard to imagine an alien evolving in a similar environment, with similar evolutionary pressures, would look similar to us. Speaking perfect English on the other hand...

Let's also not forget we're talking about giant robot aliens that transform into cars. Let's not over-think this too much. It's certainly obvious the filmmakers haven't.

[peter]

Haha, I still can't believe we're still talking about this....

Personally, I've come to accept that Klingons in Star Trek TOS, looked exactly like humans with a little shoe polish smudged on their faces. It's entertainment, so I don't need them to justify it. The general public are so close-minded, they probably wouldn't accept the fact that aliens might loook drastically different from us. 50 or 60 years ago, people couldn't accept an Asian person playing an Asian on TV or in the movies (David Carradine, Kung Fu, haha!)

There's nothing wrong with it, just don't try to tell people it scientifically, or theoroetically makes sense, without some solid references to back it up. Most of the "theories" I've heard are based on physiology of an Earth-borne brain....what if an alien brain functions perfectly fine at any temperature? Would it still need a head? Would the head have to be mounted on a neck between two shoulders? What if an alien had multiple brains? What if the brain wasn't one solid mass, but fluid and ran through the entire body? Christ, the debate could go on forever....why? Because as far as I know, scientists have never examined any alien biologicals. And nevermind that Transformers aren't biological. My car has a "brain"....the ECU is buried underneath the dash....my car's "nose" is under the hood and it's "mouth" is near it's a$$hole. No "head" to be seen. The bipedal humanoid works on Earth, and that's how we evolved....it happened to be this way....I suppose it could happen somewhere else in the galaxy, but don't base theories of alien life form configuration on the function and requirements of the human brain. It's beyond ridiculous. You may as well say the Earth is really flat.

Haha, people trash Lucas sometimes, but gotta give him credit for occasionaly coming up with alternatives to the two arms, two legs, bi-pedal alien.

Edited July 15, 2011 by peter

[Archer]

^actually, we could probably infer that TFs have singular brains inside their heads, considering the countless headshot kills employed in the movies. If they had other nueral processing centers, then they could simply readjust their processing, and continue to live on, but this is not the case is it ? (look up nueroplasticity for further inference)

On the whole science debate, I would agree with Gui on this one. first of all, if anyone noticed, lots of insect, animal, etc. TFs were featured, such as scorponok, which really invalidates the whole argument essentially. Beyond that, Gui is not just throwing around random stuff, those are well established biotheories regarding human development. On my own part, I'd like to add some support as well ( oh boy ). If we recall, TFs, especially the younger ones like sideswipe, were created with a purpose of combat to some extent. now, that would generally elicit designs such as carnivorous animals, prone to combat situations. BUT, at the same time, TFs are an intelligent lifeform capable of greater thought and self - progressive thought.

this is key. Evolutionary theory has demonstrated that one of the most important underbasings for human intelligence development was the undertaking of a bipedal form nearly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago in our evolutionary ancestor, the Australopithecus afarensis. Bipedal stance allowed for an efficient form that was able to adequately disribute net energy within the body to respective components of the body without much energy loss, in things such as transport of resources. Beyond that, blood supply to the brain was enriched and improved as well thanks to a bipedal stance.

The sum total of this allowed for alleviation of first to second tier survival systems, such as the necessity to constantly find food, and gave way to actions such as simple tool development and even food production. This gave way to a growing brain, which lead to self -awareness and higher thought, which defines a "person" today.

If transformers are beings of higher thought, then a similar evolutionary path makes complete sense, considering the importance of bipedal nature, leading to a logical humanoid form. Beyond this, going back to the combat argument, humanoids are also the worlds deadliest animals thanks to tool (weapon) development. This logically translates to the TF world as well, making a humanoid structure quite applicable. Beyond that, we can't go around saying that basing theories off humans invalid, just because "what if aliens...?" . Since we don't know of any aliens, Gui's human based stance makes the most logical sense in terms of pure cogent reasoning. If not, we'd all be guilty of the argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.

Imho, Gui has had it right based on pure reasoning from the start. so let's not ridicule him eh

Besides, I think more people would complain if TFs were 7 foot walking insectoids.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Archer

[JB0]

I was not intending to get involved in the whole Evolution of Transformers VS Evolution of Man debate.

I'm just saying they don't look alien. And as robots, they have no need to look or function at all like humans.

If you have wheels, why do you need legs? They're more complex to build, maintain, and operate.

If you don't breathe, why do you have a nose? And related to breathing... why would a race of robots need speech when they can communicate through radio waves faster and more efficiently, as well as in environments where speech is impossible, such as the vacuum of space.

Even the basics like binocular vision for depth perception are questionable. It's EASY to bounce a laser off an object and time how long it takes to return. AND it avoids the many ambiguities present in the human implementation of depth perception, which is HEAVILY dependent on environmental assumptions.

But they ARE mechanical humans. Because it's more marketable that way.

Might be a bad example. Gravity was considered a law (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation). The law of gravity fails to explain perturbations in Mercury's orbit, though, and was superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. And relativity doesn't work with quantum mechanics, leading to quantum gravity theory. Or loop quantum gravity, if you want to try to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.

Fair enough.

Wikipedia sez "A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation."

So the same general rules apply. A law can be overturned, just as a theory can, if you can produce evidence contrary to the law/theory. But were there no evidence supporting it, it wouldn't be more than a hypothesis in the first place.

In any case, a scientific theory is still something that has been proven. It may not actually be a correct interpretation of the evidence, but were it untested, it would be a hypothesis, not a theory.

To continue beating on gravity... the gravity waves hypothesized by relativity have now been observed, and that is now theory.

And to make me look like a fool, there's string theory, which has made no testable predictions.

I'd argue it should be string hypothesis, but it's theoretical physics, which is a whole different kind of weird.

It's interesting, however, to note that special relativity and general relativity also originated in theoretical physics. But many of their predictions are now tested and verified, so large parts reside in the realm of "real" physics.

Edited July 16, 2011 by JB0

[VT 1010]

But they ARE mechanical humans. Because it's more marketable that way.

Of course it's because of marketing. The simple fact that they're giant robots already causes "science issues". It's more fun to debate the trivial technical details though.

Besides, transforming a toy car into a toy...faceless alien toaster-thing isn't as fun as a robotic dude with a gun. "What's he supposed to fight the villains with?" "I don't know, but my toast is done."

[Gui]

Wow, a few days only after a motherboard crash and I get entire novels/essays: I should post more often

Concerning the whole "brains have an upper limit" issue...

Am I to understand that ants (with 6 limbs), spiders (, crabs (10), not to mention centipedes or millipedes are lugging around have 2 to ? many extra limbs just because...the extra weight keeps them in shape?

If you want to nitpick the fact that none of those animals have 10 fingers/toes on each limb...how about monkeys? They have five fingered hands with opposable thumbs, plus feet whose toes have a lot more dexterity than ours...and they have a prehensile tail.

On the other hand...I could see research showing that the humanoid form is the most efficient (as seen in Gui's statements about the brain, ears, and eyes).

I could be way off on all of that...I'm a chemist, after all, not a biologist. But if someone is going to insult someone else for questioning "scientifically established theories," that person should cite some publications in scientific journals.

Because, as a man once said, "between recognized experts and a big mouth on a forum, the choice is quickly done, you know, at least for the ones of us who can use their brain."

PS: Just to show that I'm not just picking on Gui...Peter, everything in science is (technically) just a theory that no one has been able to disprove yet. "Scientific fact" is just a phrase.

Like I said in my very first post on this subject, the reasonning I exposed concerns intelligent beings and not insects, all the more as these ones don't even have brains to begin with – yeah, I know they have several tiny brains all along their body, but that's precisely because none of them can work as a brain: they're more like neural nodes or something like that...

Also, it makes sense that I was just talking: we're not in a trial and I don't have to prove anything I say; you can, on the other hand, disbelieve me, of course, but having fun of me wasn't welcome, for obvious reasons, especially when I was trying to get over an argument as sophisticated as "oh my god, the Bayformers look like sh!t, I take G1 everyday!" VS "oh my god, G1 designs suck so much, I prefer Bayformers by far!" – because, frankly, it is more or less the summary of this topic so far...

But if you're really interested into my sources, jwasko, and if you understand french, I can give a try to looking back for them. I didn't bother to cite them at the beginning because I simply thought that there wouldn't be as much as a ruckuss and that most people here couldn't understand this language anyway; if this becomes a subject of forumic sanity, though, I can give my best at doing some efforts but I don't promise anything...

When I first started reading this page, I was about to add my own rant about scientific theory vs. casual usage of the term theory. Anyway...

IIRC, part of the reason we don't have twenty limbs is because it's not very cost effective. Doing so would provide us with little survival benefit, yet we would have much greater energy requirements. Why don't we have three or even four eyes? It's because we have been able to efficiently get away with two for quite some time.

Think of it this way: You may have three arms, four legs, twenty eyes, and sonar. All of this added weight may make it more difficult for you to run from predators--particularly those with fewer limbs. What if you evolved to move quickly and evade those predators? You're now going to have to eat more to sustain that incredibly freaky body of yours. This is problematic when food and other resources are scarce. Contrast this with your more ape-like cousin. Though he can't do everything you can, he can do most of it and at half the energy cost--just enough to get by. It's only an evolutionary advantage if you can get away with it.

So how can this tie into humanoid looking aliens? Our current biological "configuration" is successful because it's the minimum we needed to get by. There are only so many ways to configure four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a mouth, etc. and this version has worked for us. It's not hard to imagine an alien evolving in a similar environment, with similar evolutionary pressures, would look similar to us. Speaking perfect English on the other hand...

Let's also not forget we're talking about giant robot aliens that transform into cars. Let's not over-think this too much. It's certainly obvious the filmmakers haven't.

That, and...

^actually, we could probably infer that TFs have singular brains inside their heads, considering the countless headshot kills employed in the movies. If they had other nueral processing centers, then they could simply readjust their processing, and continue to live on, but this is not the case is it ? (look up nueroplasticity for further inference)

On the whole science debate, I would agree with Gui on this one. first of all, if anyone noticed, lots of insect, animal, etc. TFs were featured, such as scorponok, which really invalidates the whole argument essentially. Beyond that, Gui is not just throwing around random stuff, those are well established biotheories regarding human development. On my own part, I'd like to add some support as well ( oh boy ). If we recall, TFs, especially the younger ones like sideswipe, were created with a purpose of combat to some extent. now, that would generally elicit designs such as carnivorous animals, prone to combat situations. BUT, at the same time, TFs are an intelligent lifeform capable of greater thought and self - progressive thought.

this is key. Evolutionary theory has demonstrated that one of the most important underbasings for human intelligence development was the undertaking of a bipedal form nearly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago in our evolutionary ancestor, the Australopithecus afarensis. Bipedal stance allowed for an efficient form that was able to adequately disribute net energy within the body to respective components of the body without much energy loss, in things such as transport of resources. Beyond that, blood supply to the brain was enriched and improved as well thanks to a bipedal stance.

The sum total of this allowed for alleviation of first to second tier survival systems, such as the necessity to constantly find food, and gave way to actions such as simple tool development and even food production. This gave way to a growing brain, which lead to self -awareness and higher thought, which defines a "person" today.

If transformers are beings of higher thought, then a similar evolutionary path makes complete sense, considering the importance of bipedal nature, leading to a logical humanoid form. Beyond this, going back to the combat argument, humanoids are also the worlds deadliest animals thanks to tool (weapon) development. This logically translates to the TF world as well, making a humanoid structure quite applicable. Beyond that, we can't go around saying that basing theories off humans invalid, just because "what if aliens...?" . Since we don't know of any aliens, Gui's human based stance makes the most logical sense in terms of pure cogent reasoning. If not, we'd all be guilty of the argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.

Imho, Gui has had it right based on pure reasoning from the start. so let's not ridicule him eh

Besides, I think more people would complain if TFs were 7 foot walking insectoids.

... That sum it up basically.

If we admit that life cannot appear on worlds whose conditions are too much different than Earth, and if we consider the laws of evolution as universal, then because the same causes give the same consequences it makes perfect sense that an alien life form would be pretty similar to us – not identical, but with an overall comparable shape.

Of course, we can still imagine worlds with different conditions but we don't know any of them with life forms therefore we can't say for sure that life forms can appear on them, or we'll "get mixed up between science, science-fiction and science-fantasy" like a very enlighted member here said...

And because the same guy also evoked the flatness of the Earth, it may be welcome to keep in mind that a few centuries ago all scientists in the world were convinced of that.

But time has passed and things have changed...

[JB0]

If we admit that life cannot appear on worlds whose conditions are too much different than Earth, and if we consider the laws of evolution as universal, then because the same causes give the same consequences it makes perfect sense that an alien life form would be pretty similar to us – not identical, but with an overall comparable shape.

That first clause is a pretty big assumption, though.

We already know that silicon can form molecules in long complex chains similar to carbon, just not in Earth-like environments. That's why sci-fi often has silicon-based life.

And even on Earth, we've found life in every kind of inhospitably sterile hellhole we can think of.

There's life in the boiling water around volcanic vents and inside geysers. Life in the incredible pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Life in the intense cold of Antarctica.

Even life in "poisonous" environments of pure arsenic, totally starved of phosphorous. Less than a year ago, phosphorous was considered mandatory for any carbon-based life, and arsenic universally toxic.

Much of this life is fundamentally "alien" to us. But it exists. Everywhere there is water. In every shape imaginable, and many that defy all imagination.

The assumption that a primate will become the dominant life-form is even more anthropocentric than the assumption that circumstances humans find comfortable are the only circumstances under which life can thrive.

This is certainly the case in one known instance. It is HARDLY indicative of a trend.

Other than it's never been seen on Earth, what makes something like Niven's Puppeteers particularly implausable?

Or even something as "normal" as a smart wolf or elephant? Maybe even a dolphin?

Of course, we can still imagine worlds with different conditions but we don't know any of them with life forms therefore we can't say for sure that life forms can appear on them, or we'll "get mixed up between science, science-fiction and science-fantasy" like a very enlighted member here said...

To take that argument to it's logical conclusion, to claim that any world but Earth can harbor life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary(7 dead planets and numerous dead non-planetary bodies) would be such a crime.

The evidence to date indicates that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE but the Earth can life originate, in any form.

I find this a truly absurd stance to take.

We know so close to nothing of the universe as to make no difference.

It is roughly akin to plucking a single grain of sand from the beach, placing it under a microscope and examining it in excruciating detail, then claiming to know not merely the beach, but the Earth as a whole from this exhaustive study of a single grain of sand.

We as a species continue to find the "impossible" happening on our very own planet, despite some hundred millenia of experience with it. In light of that, it seems fair to assume that anything is possible in the vast infinite canvas of the universe... perhaps even naturally-occurring sentient humanoid robots.

[Gui]

That first clause is a pretty big assumption, though.

We already know that silicon can form molecules in long complex chains similar to carbon, just not in Earth-like environments. That's why sci-fi often has silicon-based life.

And even on Earth, we've found life in every kind of inhospitably sterile hellhole we can think of.

There's life in the boiling water around volcanic vents and inside geysers. Life in the incredible pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Life in the intense cold of Antarctica.

Even life in "poisonous" environments of pure arsenic, totally starved of phosphorous. Less than a year ago, phosphorous was considered mandatory for any carbon-based life, and arsenic universally toxic.

Much of this life is fundamentally "alien" to us. But it exists. Everywhere there is water. In every shape imaginable, and many that defy all imagination.

I know that. Actually they talked about the life forms in the arsenic in the science magazine I subscribed to some time ago.

But they still don't know if these bacterias appeared there spontaneously or if they progessively adapted from another, more clement environment.

Same remark for the other examples you mentionned.

The assumption that a primate will become the dominant life-form is even more anthropocentric than the assumption that circumstances humans find comfortable are the only circumstances under which life can thrive.

This is certainly the case in one known instance. It is HARDLY indicative of a trend.

Other than it's never been seen on Earth, what makes something like Niven's Puppeteers particularly implausable?

Or even something as "normal" as a smart wolf or elephant? Maybe even a dolphin?

But we all know that dolphins are intelligent, and we know this since a while. Actually, this has nothing to do with their current environment because they are descendants of dogs which came back to the water millions of years ago – first rivers, then oceans. The case of elephants is different, but they didn't become the dominant life forms on our world either, and you know why? Because they lack hands...

See, one of our ancestors, homo habilis, wasn't particularly smart but it was enough in order to give particular shapes to common natural items – such as simple stones that he carved into flints. Through millions of years, because he trained his brain throughout such exercices this organ became progressively more complex.

It is not enough to explain the superior intelligence of mankind but it remains one of the most decisive factor: "do-it-yourelf"

To take that argument to it's logical conclusion, to claim that any world but Earth can harbor life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary(7 dead planets and numerous dead non-planetary bodies) would be such a crime.

The evidence to date indicates that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE but the Earth can life originate, in any form.

I find this a truly absurd stance to take.

The flaw of your reasonning is in the very two first words of the very last sentence: you find this is an intolerable idea – like one century ago christians found Darwin theories were a crime.

But opinions are not facts.

We know so close to nothing of the universe as to make no difference.

It is roughly akin to plucking a single grain of sand from the beach, placing it under a microscope and examining it in excruciating detail, then claiming to know not merely the beach, but the Earth as a whole from this exhaustive study of a single grain of sand.

[...]

Ah, the vastnes of the universe... Thousands of scifi writers found in it countless pretexts for giving us complete bullsh!t to read or watch, and it became one of the reasons why science-fiction is not taken seriously by the scientist community – even if a lot of writers of this genre are scientists themselves.

But scientists still have to understand that the interest of science-fiction is not in exploring strange new worlds, and all the more as these most often are not even as strange and as new as one may think, but in exploring the various possibles that science and technology offer to us: how they can change our world like all sciences and technologies have always changed it since the beginning of times when we carved the first already abovementioned flints – and what will be the place of mankind in this everchanging environment.

That's the difference between science-fiction and mainstream litterature, you know: science-fiction is not sclerosed and it can play with new ideas because science always make new discoveries whith each of them being the possibility of a new world...

And that's also why Transformers is sh!tty science-fiction while I'm at it, from G1 to the Bayformers.

[...]

We as a species continue to find the "impossible" happening on our very own planet, despite some hundred millenia of experience with it. In light of that, it seems fair to assume that anything is possible in the vast infinite canvas of the universe... perhaps even naturally-occurring sentient humanoid robots.

See? You came to it yourself!

[peter]

Of course, we can still imagine worlds with different conditions but we don't know any of them with life forms therefore we can't say for sure that life forms can appear on them, or we'll "get mixed up between science, science-fiction and science-fantasy" like a very enlighted member here said...

And because the same guy also evoked the flatness of the Earth, it may be welcome to keep in mind that a few centuries ago all scientists in the world were convinced of that.

But time has passed and things have changed...

It's okay, you can use my name, I know what I said. Now, why would I mention the flatness of the Earth? Because it sounds as primitive as this statement "So, yeah, in the end, aliens should look like us, at least in the overal shape." which was backed it up with theories of alien physiology based on a *repeated for the 10 millionth time* HUMAN BRAINin an EARTH ENVIRONMENT, that followed OUR PARTICULAR CHAIN OF EVOLUTION. Now, based on some of your later arguments with JBO, you seem alot more intelligent than I assumed which was based this post:

Actually, if you take into account some recent scientific theories about alien life, it makes a lot of sense to get vaguely humanoid shapes, at least for intelligent being. It is all related to the brain in fact.

Because the brain cannot control efficiently a lot of limbs, their number is restricted to four, then that's two to walk/run and two to manipulate things with the hands that finish them and which are simply evolved feet.

Because the brain cannot work properly if it is at the same temperature than the body, it needs to be stored in a sort of limb which has to be outside of the body (ie the head).

The number of eyes is related to the mass of data the brain can compute: two being the minimum required to have a feel of depth, it is enough; same thing for the ears: you can't locate the source of a noise (ie a prey or a danger) if you have only one.

As for the placement of nose and mouth, the first is placed above the second because otherwise the ancestors without hands would have had some difficulties to eat.

So, yeah, in the end, aliens should look like us, at least in the overal shape.

But, of course, I don't think the guys from ILM took any of this into account when designing the Bayformers...

I'm not saying aliens that look like us is impossible, but to say that aliens should look like us because **insert ridonkulous theories here*.......are you serious?!?!? Do you really believe that? Please tell me you're kidding or at least generalizing and that you only beleive that this is possible, but not necessarily true to all (if any) alien life. I mean, you make it sound like intelligent life, alien or not, can only exist in humanoid form. If not, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Those theories would make sense if an alien had a human (or human-like) brain, on a planet with Earth-like qualities but who are we to assume that intelligent life out there has such a brain? I mean, they might, and such a similar planet may exist, but can't we consider the possiblity that intelligent life could exist in another form?

Transformers have a humanoid shape with eyes, a nose and mouth, which is beyond silly, but when I was a 5 year old, it really didn't matter.

This whole argument is a bit silly and pointless to be honest, because it's not very likely that either of us will ever know the answer in our lifetime. "Aliens should look like us" was your statement - I say it's possible, but not necessarily true.

Edited July 18, 2011 by peter

[Archer]

It's okay, you can use my name, I know what I said. Now, why would I mention the flatness of the Earth? Because it sounds as primitive as this statement "So, yeah, in the end, aliens should look like us, at least in the overal shape." which was backed it up with theories of alien physiology based on a *repeated for the 10 millionth time* HUMAN BRAINin an EARTH ENVIRONMENT, that followed OUR PARTICULAR CHAIN OF EVOLUTION. Now, based on some of your later arguments with JBO, you seem alot more intelligent than I assumed which was based this post:

I'm not saying aliens that look like us is impossible, but to say that aliens should look like us because **insert ridonkulous theories here*.......are you serious?!?!? Do you really believe that? Please tell me you're kidding or at least generalizing and that you only beleive that this is possible, but not necessarily true to all (if any) alien life. I mean, you make it sound like intelligent life, alien or not, can only exist in humanoid form. If not, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Those theories would make sense if an alien had a human (or human-like) brain, on a planet with Earth-like qualities but who are we to assume that intelligent life out there has such a brain? I mean, they might, and such a similar planet may exist, but can't we consider the possiblity that intelligent life could exist in another form?

Transformers have a humanoid shape with eyes, a nose and mouth, which is beyond silly, but when I was a 5 year old, it really didn't matter.

This whole argument is a bit silly and pointless to be honest, because it's not very likely that either of us will ever know the answer in our lifetime. "Aliens should look like us" was your statement - I say it's possible, but not necessarily true.

Argument ad ignoratium

In all seriousness though, that is what I mentioned in my post up above supporting Gui. You say (no offense to you btw ) that all of this reasoning is bull because we are basing it on a human evolutionary basis on an Earth specific condition. BUT, thats all we HAVE to base ANYTHING on regarding extraterrestrials. The "What if" argument may seem more logical considering the vast amount of information that we don't know, but truth be told, in pure statistical as well as cogent reasoning, the human based argumentation has a MUCH higher probability of actually being correct.

The day you show us proof of ANY non humanoid living on ANY planet outside of earth, and succeeding on an evolutionary stance, you sir, will have put down every argument placed by both me and Gui, no questions asked whatsoever. But until that day comes, argumentation based on humans and what we know is the most probable and logical, whether it SEEMS logical or not. We may not know 99.99% of information regarding the universe, but basing our theories on the 0.01% that we do know will still be much better logically than placing theories on the 99.99% we don't know. Because while those that trust in the 0.01% trust in SOMETHING, those that wish upon the 99.99% are wishing on NOTHING (I can prove this statistically too. Since that 99.99% can be synonymous to infinity, basing information on infinity means you are basing info on an existant, but purely undefinable number, that, by laymen's terms, does not end. So, the chances your theory is right can be 1/1, 1/2, 1/3....1/infinity, which, by pure statsistics, is zero. Therefore, nothing)

So yeah, we kinda have to put things in perspective of humans as Gui and I have done until we find a succesful non humanoid alien, at which point Gui and I lose hands down

Edited July 19, 2011 by Archer

[Chewie]

[azrael]

Yeah...Are we gonna get back on topic or shall this thread be close till there's an actual announcement that yes, a 4th movie has been greenlit, has a director, and a script?

[Archer]

Yeah...Are we gonna get back on topic or shall this thread be close till there's an actual announcement that yes, a 4th movie has been greenlit, has a director, and a script?

Well, I thought that there has been a greenlight to the existance of a 4th movie, though I don't know of a director or script

And sorry about the science argumentation, though I would say it is very related to the topic at hand, especially if the 4th movie may be a potential reboot. Maybe someone will go ahead with non human designs

Besides, we can all get smarter off these discussions (tangents ). Who doesn't want to learn more about science? It really is awesome to watch the collective brain of MWF come together and show off its pure spectrum and wealth of knowledge I've learned a lot since the start of this thread

But in all seriousness though, I will stop if it is an issue

(Sorry again BTW)

Edited July 19, 2011 by Archer

[BeyondTheGrave]

What about humans who have tried to add cybertronian technology to their bodies? And wish bring Megatron back to life. But got some parts mixed up and actually brought shockwave back or merged the two and made galvatron.

[RD Blade]

Yeah...Are we gonna get back on topic or shall this thread be close till there's an actual announcement that yes, a 4th movie has been greenlit, has a director, and a script?

True. All this pontificating is making me nostalgic for the time when the focus of this thread was the berating of the G1-inclined.

Edit:

I kid. The sci fi convention hasn't really bothered me.

Edited July 19, 2011 by RD Blade

[azrael]

Well, I thought that there has been a greenlight to the existance of a 4th movie, though I don't know of a director or script

There's no greenlight.

http://screenrant.com/transformers-4-reboot-trilogy-rob-122652/

But in all seriousness though, I will stop if it is an issue

You will stop.

What about humans who have tried to add cybertronian technology to their bodies?

Headmasters?

And wish bring Megatron back to life. But got some parts mixed up and actually brought shockwave back or merged the two and made galvatron.

Yeah it's time to kill Optimus (for real...again) and give the damn Matrix to Rodimus.