# Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS - More Pics!



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2006)

Just found new pics!

(Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com )

[title]*Optimus Prime*[/title]






This is his front.





This is his back.





This is his headshots, also featuring his battle mode.

Source: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24396

[title]*Megatron*[/title]





His front, back, and vehicle mode.





His headshots.





More headshot.

Source #1: http://www.seibertron.com/infozone/transformers101.php
Source #2: http://www.avixion.ca/news94.htm


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 8, 2006)

You know, if this wasn't a Transformers movie I'd probably love those designs. However since it is a Transformers movie, all I can say is BLECH. I mean, what was wrong with the original designs?


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 8, 2006)

Wow, looks like Todd Morasch (sp? The artist from Bastion Press) designed those.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 8, 2006)

Is it just me, or does Megatron's mouth look like a rectum with shark teeth?


----------



## David Howery (Sep 8, 2006)

I'd still rather see a Battletech movie...


----------



## Firebeetle (Sep 8, 2006)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I'd still rather see a Battletech movie...





Done and done! Crash and Burn!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099313/
ironically this little "gem" is written by the same hack who wrote the just released "Covenent" movie.

And Robot Jox! so good it had a sequel!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107979/

All have the same producer, Charles Band. That same brillant mind that brought us Shanda: The Jungle Girl and Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys

Too bad he's not working on this Transformers movie gig, maybe he's uncredited.

Personally, I really like these visuals. They are super cool.  I really like Megatron, very techno and Lovecraftian at the same time.


----------



## Victim (Sep 8, 2006)

It looks like every part of the vehicle mode of a Transformer is shown in their humanoid form.  I wonder if the transformations didn't look right without a ton of stuff in the humanoid form, or if someone got carried away.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 8, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> It looks like every part of the vehicle mode of a Transformer is shown in their humanoid form.  I wonder if the transformations didn't look right without a ton of stuff in the humanoid form, or if someone got carried away.




I think that makes it more realistic, No disapearing parts.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> I think that makes it more realistic, No disapearing parts.




I dunno, I remember my toys looking like the transformers on TV and they didn't have dissapearing parts.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I dunno, I remember my toys looking like the transformers on TV and they didn't have dissapearing parts.



The toy didn't take into account the engines, shafts, torques, suspension systems, gas tank, electrical systems and all the tiny little parts that makes your car go. It's kid-powered.

I gotta admit, though, Optimus does look naked. If he wasn't a machine, I wouldn't put a DR value on whatever took for his armor.

As for Megatron, well, looks like a child of a Borg and a Predator (or Dracula from _Blade III: Trinity_). But then he is supposed to embrace his alien root, even if it makes him less human than his previous incarnations. One drawback though: how can he be a Decepticon -- based on the word "deception" -- if he goes around looking like an alien jet?


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> It looks like every part of the vehicle mode of a Transformer is shown in their humanoid form.  I wonder if the transformations didn't look right without a ton of stuff in the humanoid form, or if someone got carried away.



All I know is that Citreon(sp?) commercial (featuring a car-to-robot transformation and started dancing like he's Lance Bass) is going to bite us in the butt. I never should have thought that was cool.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2006)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I'd still rather see a Battletech movie...



Meh. It wouldn't be the same without LAMs.

Besides, they're undergoing some non-digital makeover with the original 'Mechs in order to avoid further lawsuits from Harmony Gold.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Sep 8, 2006)

I kind of like Optimus, but I'm not digging on the Megatron look all that much. Not even his transformed look (I thought he would at least be a tank...)


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 8, 2006)

I like them. (at least after having seen Prime, Bumblebee and Megatron) They're actually making them look like robots that disguise themselves as vehicles - it's clear that this is their primary form. The original transformers looked like vehicles that turned into robots.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I like them. (at least after having seen Prime, Bumblebee and Megatron) They're actually making them look like robots that disguise themselves as vehicles




I disagree - no robot with a sense of self-preservation that has to go into battle would want to walk around with all those working bits exposed.  The whole thing should be covered in armor.  And all those pointy things, hollows, and bits sticking out are all going to grind on, catch on stuff, and generally get stuff caught in it - not good for an action-oriented critter.  Horrid design.

And artistically, the darned things look too darned _busy_ - too many fiddly bits to distract the eye from the character.

And by the way, designers, I got one thing to point out - *robots don't need teeth*.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 8, 2006)

If you havent been following the various Transformers sites, these pics have been providing a lot of controversy from the fans. No big surprise there.  Change is scary and not everyone is gonna like the changes.

Keep in mind that this is all concept art and the final product on screen is likely to look different, albeit not dramatically so.  There's been a more 'finalised' pic of Optimus, for example, where the head is a bit different, as well as different concept shots of his weapon systems.


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 8, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I disagree - no robot with a sense of self-preservation that has to go into battle would want to walk around with all those working bits exposed.  The whole thing should be covered in armor.  And all those pointy things, hollows, and bits sticking out are all going to grind on, catch on stuff, and generally get stuff caught in it - not good for an action-oriented critter.  Horrid design.




So what does this have to do with my post? I didn't say they looked like perfect battle robots, just that, for a change, they looked more like robots and less like cars. And I like it. 

I suppose you're free to disagree with that, just as you're free to disagree with my fondness for the color blue, if that sort of thing works for you. :\ 

Moreover, are you really trying to argue about what _makes sense_ for giant, alien, bipedal robots that change into cars and planes and construction equipment? Because I can think of a lot more problems with this concept than just the "pointy things" and "bits sticking out". 

Though if you wanted to play that game, I could easily claim that they are not an issue, because they're simply camouflage, and not of any structural significance to anything strong enough to move around in bipedal humanoid form at 50-60 feet tall. That, in fact, it makes much more sense to only cover the vital areas in thicker armor with a smaller surface area than cover the whole thing in box-like armor plate.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 8, 2006)

Prime looks fine.  A reasonable update.

Megatron looks like complete and utter crap.  There is nothing that can be done for that design, save throwing it in the can and starting over.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> So what does this have to do with my post? I didn't say they looked like perfect battle robots, just that, for a change, they looked more like robots and less like cars. And I like it.




You are, of course, free to like what you want.  I'm free to disagree, and I hope we're both cool with that.

I'm saying they don't look more like robots, because no self-respecting robot would look like that. And it isn't as if Megatron's "metallic thornbush" look is really "natural" for a robot.



> Moreover, are you really trying to argue about what _makes sense_ for giant, alien, bipedal robots that change into cars and planes and construction equipment?




Yep.  Because I am, despite any veneer of civilization, a big honkin' geek.  



> Though if you wanted to play that game, I could easily claim that they are not an issue, because they're simply camouflage, and not of any structural significance to anything strong enough to move around in bipedal humanoid form at 50-60 feet tall.




Some of those bits are tires, wings and other bits required to get around in the vehicular form, and thus vulnerable.  And, in general, their being structurally significant isn't necessarily an issue - even cosmetic plates will likely get itn the way of transformation if they get bent and deformed.  When Optimus gets slammed around the street in a fight, he's gonna get a mailbox, a hunk of concrete, or maybe some bystander's poodle stuck behind  that shoulder plate on his back, and he's gonna need a crowbar to get it out before he can say "Let's roll out!", is all I'm sayin'.

And energon-sucking robots still don't need teeth


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 8, 2006)

I still say Megatrons mouth looks like a rectum with shark teeth...

Megatron look more preditory now than he has in others takes on the charater. Perhaps this is supposed to be his form on Cybertron before traveling to Earth millions of years ago.

There is a lot of odd mechanical fussyness to them.

Where can a guy find some of the other pics?


----------



## Mercule (Sep 8, 2006)

I just noticed: the tires split into parts.  Why do the tires split into parts?  There is no functional purpose that could possibly support.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 8, 2006)

Megatron won´t be an alien jet. According to the production staff, he´s going to be a Razor jet, a new experimental model the US Air Force is working on.

I´d still prefer him to be a tank, with the gun being placed on his forearm.

And Optimus does look skinny. Bumblebee looks sotckier than him in the leaked picture.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Megatron won´t be an alien jet. According to the production staff, he´s going to be a Razor jet, a new experimental model the US Air Force is working on.



A Razor jet? As in after the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter? I know they're going to be CG but they should at least try build a full-scale experimental jet and test if it can fly.

I still think they should stick with existing vehicles.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 8, 2006)

Optimus Prime looks fine, but Megatron is horrid. I mean really, if I saw that I would have no idea it is Megatron.


----------



## Victim (Sep 8, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Megatron looks like complete and utter crap.  There is nothing that can be done for that design, save throwing it in the can and starting over.




Megatron looks like someone covered him in glue and then dumped thousands of razor blades on him.

It looks kind of cool in my opinion.

--------------------------------------

Who would build a full scale jet?  Modern jets generally aren't stable flyers anyway without computer control.  And most of the tests are done with computer simulations - by the time someone builds anything, they had better be damn sure it's going to fly.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 8, 2006)

I stick to my guns here, and wish Megatron were a tank. And the robots have no business being this skinny due to motors and pipes and inner workings because *they don't have them*! At least nothing that compares to the real vehicles's inner parts! Optimus could look just like the toy. Heck, this is a case where they are having to use CGI to replicate something already sculpted (because the toys are already perfect 3D models). They could just ask Hasbro to build an Optimus toy based on the Vanderbilt truck they chose and the scan it to the computer, dammit!





I'll be over here listening to Stan Bush...


"You got the touch/You got the poweeeeeer..."


----------



## The Serge (Sep 9, 2006)

Prime is tolerable.

Megatron looks like the Shrike.  He should have either been a gun (which would have been cool... even if it made no sense to most people), a tank (tolerable), or a giant gun  -- a gatling, say -- or an artillary canon (which would have been awesome).  

You ought to see the concept sketches for Starscream.  He looks looks _awful_...  Wanna see...?  It's apparently a model for the toy that's going to be released.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2006)

It's one of those things you'll either like or you won't.  Nobody's gonna change their mind.

I'm in the "don't like it" camp.  I have the original 80s Optimus Prime toy sitting on my bookslef, and I thnk it looks just fine.  I see no need to change him; I would accept changes, though - but I don't _like _ these changes.  Optimus looks skinny, not the bulky, powerful Transformer on my mantlepiece,

It takes all sorts, I suppose.  I'll still go see it, but I bet I'll whine about it afterwards.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 9, 2006)

The Transformers stopped being interesting following the untimely death of Scatman Cruthers(sp) circa 1987.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 9, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's one of those things you'll either like or you won't.  Nobody's gonna change their mind.
> 
> I'm in the "don't like it" camp.  I have the original 80s Optimus Prime toy sitting on my bookslef, and I thnk it looks just fine.  I see no need to change him; I would accept changes, though - but I don't _like _ these changes.  Optimus looks skinny, not the bulky, powerful Transformer on my mantlepiece,
> 
> It takes all sorts, I suppose.  I'll still go see it, but I bet I'll whine about it afterwards.



 So, is it a good or bad idea to make a _Transformers_ live-action film?

Can we accept their animated version to interact with live-action environment without calling into question, "where does the rest of his armor went when they're in their vehicle mode?"


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, is it a good or bad idea to make a _Transformers_ live-action film?




It's a good idea to make a good Transformers film.  It's a bad idea to make a bad one.  Not sure how else to answer that question.  Not having seen the movie, I'll let you know next year whether I think it was a good or bad idea.



> Can we accept their animated version to interact with live-action environment without calling into question, "where does the rest of his armor went when they're in their vehicle mode?"




I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means.  Could you rephrase it?

My POV was simple - the new looks aren't to my tastes.  Whether that will ruin the film for me or not remains to be seen.  I hope it doesn't.


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 9, 2006)

Well, how many good Michael Bay movies have their been?  He's darn near Uwe Boll territory, only with $100 million+ movie budgets


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 9, 2006)

There's some transformer's pics and other stuff at myextralife.com

The podcast has an interview with a guy who supposedly happened upon a shoot of hte film and whipped out his camera.

http://www.myextralife.com/?cat=7


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Sep 9, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, how many good Michael Bay movies have their been?




The Rock was pretty good. And his movies tend to take in a lot more money than Uwe Boll movies (not that that means anything in regards to quality, though).


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 9, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means.  Could you rephrase it?
> 
> My POV was simple - the new looks aren't to my tastes.  Whether that will ruin the film for me or not remains to be seen.  I hope it doesn't.



I mean, should they use the old-school version of Prime with all of the bare parts covered up in "skin" and armor, even though it is logically impossible to hide them in their vehicle mode (not without interfering parts that keeps him alive and move him on the road)?

After all, they got to be able to fool the denizens of earth if they ever inspect them closely.


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 10, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> The Rock was pretty good. And his movies tend to take in a lot more money than Uwe Boll movies (not that that means anything in regards to quality, though).




The Rock was okay, but had a whole lot of stupid stuff in it, IMHO.  And his movies make money because they tend to have star power. I mean, his first movie was a Will Smith movie, and Will is actually the biggest draw in Hollywood in terms of money.  I think pretty much $100 million guaranteed. Even his bad movies.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 10, 2006)

Egads!  How much more "anime" styled can those designs get?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I mean, should they use the old-school version of Prime with all of the bare parts covered up in "skin" and armor, even though it is logically impossible to hide them in their vehicle mode (not without interfering parts that keeps him alive and move him on the road)?
> 
> After all, they got to be able to fool the denizens of earth if they ever inspect them closely.




Visually, I'd prefer it if they did, yes.  In response to your implied bias in the question, yes that is more importsnt to me than "realism" in a movie about intelligent talking intergalactic robots who transform into everyday vehicles.

It's a fantasy sci-fi flick. I'd rather Bay made it look nice (in my eyes and to my preference) than appeal to realism.  It worked fine for everyone 20 years ago, and it would work fine now.

But, as I said, it's just a visual taste thing.  That's my visual taste.  Yours is welcome to differ.  It's a movie.


----------



## Acid_crash (Sep 10, 2006)

After seeing these images I will still go and see the movie, but the original news I heard (over a year ago) is that they were basing the look of the transformers on the original cartoon... I guess that's a big flipping dissapointment.  The last thing I wanted to see was an anime influence into the design of the robots.

Still....

Prime looks cool, and so does Megatron.  I'm all for it.  

I'm easy to please, and I like just about every Michael Bay film he's done, so I'm all over this.  But... I'm not all that picky of a movie critic.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 10, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's a fantasy sci-fi flick. I'd rather Bay made it look nice (in my eyes and to my preference) than appeal to realism.  It worked fine for everyone 20 years ago, and it would work fine now.



Well, I was 20+ years youngers than I am now (that would put me around 13 or 14), but it does look fine in animation. But live-action, even with CG effect, is a whole different ... scenery? landscape? ... premise. It can either end up like _Jurassic Park_ ... or _The Son of Mask._ *shudder*




			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> But, as I said, it's just a visual taste thing.  That's my visual taste.  Yours is welcome to differ.  It's a movie.



Well, I'm still on the fence on this one. Personally, I'm hoping that Prime's battle mode transformation affect his entire body (going from normal to up-armored) rather than just his head.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 10, 2006)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Egads!  How much more "anime" styled can those designs get?





You do realize, of course, that not only was the original Transformers cartoon Hasbro commisioned anime, but the toys were nothing more than repackaged US reissues of existing Japanese toys taken from several different toy lines?  



The "blame everything I dont like on anime" line has gotten really really really really really really really really old.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> You do realize, of course, that not only was the original Transformers cartoon Hasbro commisioned anime, but the toys were nothing more than repackaged US reissues of existing Japanese toys taken from several different toy lines?
> 
> 
> 
> The "blame everything I dont like on anime" line has gotten really really really really really really really really old.




Somoene expressing a difference in opinion to you abuot their stylistic tastes is not something to be offended at.  I think it's obvious that "anime" in this case is shorthand for "spiky weird looking stuff", which, to non-anime buffs, is pretty much waht the word means.  It's no different to me not distinguishing between different types of "dance" music; a sin which many younger people seem to feel is inexcusable.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 11, 2006)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> After seeing these images I will still go and see the movie, but the original news I heard (over a year ago) is that they were basing the look of the transformers on the original cartoon... I guess that's a big flipping dissapointment.



Umm, are you disappointed they're using the original cartoon for inspiration in the upcoming film, or that they're not the same?  :\ 

Because I'm a fan of the original cartoon, where Optimus Prime is a trailer truck ... not the most recent series where he's a flying firetruck.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 11, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> The "blame everything I dont like on anime" line has gotten really really really really really really really really old.



Anime is not bad, but there are different art styles, and choosing the wrong one can totally ruin one's viewing pleasure.

I mean, it _is_ safe to assume Michael Bay is not using face faults in his film, right?


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 11, 2006)

from PVPOnline


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Sep 11, 2006)

Yuck.  Megatron looks like crap.  Looks like another rental to me.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Sep 11, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Somoene expressing a difference in opinion to you abuot their stylistic tastes is not something to be offended at.  I think it's obvious that "anime" in this case is shorthand for "spiky weird looking stuff", which, to non-anime buffs, is pretty much waht the word means.  It's no different to me not distinguishing between different types of "dance" music; a sin which many younger people seem to feel is inexcusable.





I'm a fan of something having an anime look when it is in an anime or a video game.  This is suposed to be a live action movie which means that impractival stylistic flurishes should not be part of the design of the "mecha" if you want to convince us that the mecha were built as warmachines and not objects of art.   What good is having an over sized stylized shoulder pad on a mech if it is not aerodynamic, or if it can easily restrict the mech's movement or have its design blown away by megatron's blast cannon?  Considering that the assumption of the movie is that the autobots/decepticons are sentient machines they would quickly realize that in a time of war, adding additional florishes to one's build IS NOT practical to a war machine.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Sep 11, 2006)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Considering that the assumption of the movie is that the autobots/decepticons are sentient machines they would quickly realize that in a time of war, adding additional florishes to one's build IS NOT practical to a war machine.




They're not war machines, though. They're aliens. While they happen to be alien robots, they are nevertheless aliens. The autobots, in particular, were not originally warriors in any case, but reluctantly took up the mantle when faced with the onslaught of the oppressive decepticons.

Maybe it sounds like I'm picking nits, but really, it seems to me that whatever their origins, the Transformers were- in their original source material- to their world what humans are to earth; the major population, and sole sentient population of their world. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me that their "design" might be any less practical than the design of our human bodies is. 

(And yes, I realize that the Ark remade the autobots and decepticons to resemble earth vehicles, but it didn't change the fundamental design of them in most cases, just their outer appearance. It didn't make Optimus into a battle tank- despite the fact that might have made him a better warrior- it just made his truck form look more like an Earth truck.)


----------



## Knightfall (Sep 11, 2006)

Optimus looks great. Megatron's face looks awful. The rest of him is just "ok".

Oh well, it just goes to show you can't please everyone. I'm sure I'll love the movie anyway.

Transformers Forever!

KF72


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> They're not war machines, though. They're aliens. While they happen to be alien robots, they are nevertheless aliens. The autobots, in particular, were not originally warriors in any case, but reluctantly took up the mantle when faced with the onslaught of the oppressive decepticons.




Exactly... Which is why I like the fact they no longer look like their design is based on toy cars and toy planes. 

Though I'll freely admit that I'm biased and never liked the way the Transformers looked originally - I first saw it when I was already in my teens, thought the toys looked ugly and clumsy, and the cartoon characters looked just like the toys.

I'm actually like that with a _lot_ of stuff US nerds tend to go nuts over... I didn't grow up in the US, so aside from a few major things like Star Wars and LotR, I wasn't exposed to most "classic" comics and cartoons until I was older. 

And more often than not, when changes are made - the Green Goblin's costume in Spiderman, the X-Men movie uniforms, the "horror" that some people think is the Ultimate Marvel comic line, or re-designed Transformers - I actually find myself going "Oh, thank God. That 20 or 30-year old stuff looked ridiculous."


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 11, 2006)

For those at all interested, the TFW2005 site now has pics of the full scale Bumblebee prop.
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/imagehosting/441824504a1ef2cfd4.jpg


----------



## David Howery (Sep 12, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. It wouldn't be the same without LAMs.
> 
> Besides, they're undergoing some non-digital makeover with the original 'Mechs in order to avoid further lawsuits from Harmony Gold.



eh... LAMS?  What be them?  Harmony Gold?  What are these strange words you say?


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 12, 2006)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> For those at all interested, the TFW2005 site now has pics of the full scale Bumblebee prop.
> http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/imagehosting/441824504a1ef2cfd4.jpg



The pic doesn't seem to bad. The body style does correspond to the pics of prime. the parts seem to flow, they are not boxy or blocky


----------



## Roudi (Sep 12, 2006)

The new designs to make sense, form a certain point of view.  Robots require lots of little parts to acquire the same kind of articulation and range of motion as human beings (unless they develop a synthetic system that mimicks muscles, but that would make them less distinguishable from humans to begin with).  The blocky transformers of yore contained a great deal of handwaivium ore; any real machine constructed like G1 Optimus Prime would never be able to move as the cartoon portrayed.

Besides, this new look is more alien, which is kind of the point.  I wouldn't expect any other sentient race to look particularly like anything found on Earth (even encountering another bipedal alien species is a stretch).


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 12, 2006)

David Howery said:
			
		

> eh... LAMS?  What be them?  Harmony Gold?  What are these strange words you say?



???

For a guy who wants to see a _BattleTech_ movie, you sure don't know much about the _BattleTech_ game (the classic version, not the Wizkids "clickymechs"), huh?

*LAM = Land-Air 'Mech.* You take something like a Phoenix Hawk or a Stinger (_BT_ version of _Robotech_ Veritech fighters) and add aerospace flight and VTOL capabilities.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 13, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> For a guy who wants to see a _BattleTech_ movie, you sure don't know much about the _BattleTech_ game (the classic version, not the Wizkids "clickymechs"), huh?
> 
> *LAM = Land-Air 'Mech.* You take something like a Phoenix Hawk or a Stinger (_BT_ version of _Robotech_ Veritech fighters) and add aerospace flight and VTOL capabilities.



no, I don't know much about the game... did read a couple of the novels... but I do get the basic idea behind it all, and it's pretty neat.... and it would certainly make a better big budget CGI laden movie than Transformers....


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 13, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> ...think it's obvious that "anime" in this case is shorthand for "spiky weird looking stuff", which, to non-anime buffs, is pretty much waht the word means.




And big eyes. Don't forget big eyes. Like abnormally big eyes. Like if you saw someone on the street with eye sizes (ratio of eye size to skull size) the way they are in the cartoons, it would be alarming and gross.

Any way, aside from Megatron's bung-hole-with-fangs mouth, the designs don't bother me. I'm not the 12 year old fan I once was. I'm 33 and mildy intrested. The look of the 'Formers worries me _much_ less than the story. Granted, I did not watch the cartoon when I was 12 for high quality story. But now I don't want to shell out chash to see a movie for 12 year olds. It doesn't have to be high art, just so long as it doesn't make me want to go all MST3k on it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 13, 2006)

David Howery said:
			
		

> no, I don't know much about the game... did read a couple of the novels... but I do get the basic idea behind it all, and it's pretty neat.... and it would certainly make a better big budget CGI laden movie than Transformers....



Yet a strong case why each game setting needs to be supported with a series of tie-in novels.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 13, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> And big eyes. Don't forget big eyes. Like abnormally big eyes. Like if you saw someone on the street with eye sizes (ratio of eye size to skull size) the way they are in the cartoons, it would be alarming and gross.



One can only hope that none of the Transformers have groping tentacle. Of course, I won't object to having girls in short, tight sailor outfits like in _Austin Powers 3._


----------



## full_moon_draw (Sep 14, 2006)

Hmm,
I'm not the 12 year old fan I once was either - I'm interested cos it reminds me of the days when . . .  But that aside - 

Yeah - see what you all mean! Prime, yeah, very nice, very modern, but still Prime, an update, but recognisable as the character that we used to know! 

But Meagatron, would someone tell me WHAT that has to do with the original? Answer - not a lot!  You could call the character Megashark & no one would know the difference!! I mean - it's not even a gun!  I mean, with those gangly old arms it looks part Gibbon!!

I hope that the treatment of the charcaters isn't indicitive of the treatment of the film?
I simply don't know why hollywood does it!  They see a concept they like. Then throw the ideas & the story behind the original concept away when the film is made! Makes little sense to me peoples!

Transformers is alien robots that change into stuff, fighting a war for domination of their planet on our turf!  If it aint that in the film then I wonder why they bothered to use the TF trademark at all?

Starting to sound like straight to DVD to me ladies & gents.

Cheers - FMD


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 14, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> One can only hope that none of the Transformers have groping tentacle. Of course, I won't object to having girls in short, tight sailor outfits like in _Austin Powers 3._



Do a google search for Transformers KISS Players.
Basic Summary: The EDC defends earth with the help of the Autobots. And when the female agents kiss said Autobots, they power up.  Somehow this involves all the (Very young looking) girls wearing short skirts/bikinis too.  :\  There's a manga involved which I wont describe in to much detail but in vaguely related to something you mentioned.
The wonders of Japan.

Anyways, (To answer another post), it IS still the Autobots and Decepticons battling for control of earth, so that much is still true.  Megatron is apparently the only Transformer in the movie with a non Earth based vehicle mode, transforming into a alien-looking fighter jet (Although there's rumors hanging around that he changes into a prototype Earth jet later into the movie).  Megs has had one of the more varied sets of alt modes around if you follow the different incarnations of the franchise.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 14, 2006)

full_moon_draw said:
			
		

> I hope that the treatment of the charcaters isn't indicitive of the treatment of the film?
> I simply don't know why hollywood does it!  They see a concept they like. Then throw the ideas & the story behind the original concept away when the film is made! Makes little sense to me peoples!



No, Hollywood sees a concept that has a built-in audience that will go see a movie almost no matter what they do with it. A franchise is financially safer than a new concept, so they film it, perhaps even shoehorning a script into fitting the franchise no matter how likely.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 14, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> No, Hollywood sees a concept that has a *built-in audience*



What I fondly refer them as "label fans."




			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> that will go see a movie almost no matter what they do with it. A franchise is financially safer than a new concept, so they film it, perhaps even shoehorning a script into fitting the franchise no matter how likely.



So, we have two choices: we reform Hollywood mindframe, or we literally nuke it.

I vote for the latter.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 14, 2006)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Do a google search for Transformers KISS Players.
> Basic Summary: The EDC defends earth with the help of the Autobots. And when the female agents kiss said Autobots, they power up.  Somehow this involves all the (Very young looking) girls wearing short skirts/bikinis too.  :\  There's a manga involved which I wont describe in to much detail but in vaguely related to something you mentioned.
> The wonders of Japan.



Well, you can't expect all of Japan entertainment industry to produce high-quality stories. I partly blame them for feeding Americans' [mainlanders'] gullible brain cells for multi-sword wielding fighters/samurai.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Sep 15, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So, we have two choices: we reform Hollywood mindframe, or we literally nuke it.
> 
> I vote for the latter.



Well, the former would require a Herculean effort that would require centuries, and could easily be eroded.

The latter, though excessive, is the only way to be sure.  Plus, it makes for a great example for Hollywood v2.0, a reminder the same thing could happen to them as well


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 15, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> The latter, though excessive, is the only way to be sure.  Plus, it makes for a great example for *Hollywood v2.0,* a reminder the same thing could happen to them as well



Screw that and California. I want to build a new cinema capital on New Zealand.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 18, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's one of those things you'll either like or you won't.  Nobody's gonna change their mind.
> 
> I'm in the "don't like it" camp.  I have the original 80s Optimus Prime toy sitting on my bookslef, and I thnk it looks just fine.  I see no need to change him; I would accept changes, though - but I don't _like _ these changes.  Optimus looks skinny, not the bulky, powerful Transformer on my mantlepiece,
> 
> It takes all sorts, I suppose.  I'll still go see it, but I bet I'll whine about it afterwards.




Goes to show that we old-skool geeks love our shows the way they're meant to be. By not changing them.   

See also the effing up of the TCats.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 18, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Goes to show that we old-skool geeks love our shows the way they're meant to be.



*interrupts* Cartoonish?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 18, 2006)

Megatron looks constipated.  It's a god awful design, from what I can see.  It might look a little better colored, but I don't think it would make that big a difference.

OP bothers me not because of the little parts, but because it doesn't look like there's enough... I guess plating... to make it look like he could transform into a semi-truck and look normal.  Bumblebee looks better in this regard.

Both _designs_ look too busy, but that doesn't mean that's how it will come out.  I'd love to see a design sketch for Bumblebee to compare the two.  There's detail, but it's not really busy because it's all black.  I'm thinking that's probably how they will go for all of them - solid colors in the busy parts, to make it less so.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 18, 2006)

The Jazz-inpsired dancing Citroen from the commercial I saw some time ago looked more like a Transformer, including making the doors into "wings" of sorts.

Plus that robot could bust a move like nobody´s business!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 18, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *interrupts* Cartoonish?





Maybe not "cartoonish" but not changing the characters appearance or personalities drastically. Keeping them as close to the originals in those aspects.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 18, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Maybe not "cartoonish" but not changing the characters appearance or personalities drastically. Keeping them as close to the originals in those aspects.




Keep in mind the Transformers brand has been around for a long time.  If you asked a kid who grew up on Beast Wars or one of the later Transformers line (Armada, Cybertron, ETC), you'd get a very different responce to 'How should Megatron look).  Megs has been one of the more...varied transformers around.  Gun, tank, T-rex, alligator, car, fighter, space ship, giant hand, etc


----------



## Acid_crash (Sep 18, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Umm, are you disappointed they're using the original cartoon for inspiration in the upcoming film, or that they're not the same?  :\
> 
> Because I'm a fan of the original cartoon, where Optimus Prime is a trailer truck ... not the most recent series where he's a flying firetruck.




I'm a BIG fan of the original, not none of this new anime influenced crap cartoons that we are seeing nowadays.  The original is awesome, but after seeing the new megatron it's not really based on the original, is it?

Perhaps they are going for something totally different for most of the transformers in the new film.  I don't know.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 18, 2006)

IMHO, Megatron's form should be a weapon, reflecting his own character. Since it'd be silly to have him be a Walther PPK (as he was in G1) or a tripod space cannon (as Galvatron), the form that works best for him would be a tank.

I´d like to see the CGI models for Optimus and Megatron used in recreating the awesome brawl those two had in the Transformers movie. That'd go a long way in dissuading the fears of G1 fans. Specially since they got the original voice actor to be Optimus again.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 18, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Maybe not "cartoonish" but not changing the characters appearance or personalities drastically. Keeping them as close to the originals in those aspects.



For now, I prefer they edit Megatron's face. I like his face to resemble an iconic "Moriarty" type villain, not some horror film reject. Give that "ass-face" to one of his enforcer assassin mook-bots.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 19, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Done and done! Crash and Burn!
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099313/
> ironically this little "gem" is written by the same hack who wrote the just released "Covenent" movie.



 Really? This means the borrowing goes back a long way...

C&B: Btech
????
????
????
Underworld: V:tm W:tA
Covenent: M:tA


----------



## Klaus (Sep 26, 2006)

Bumping this up to post the concept art for Autobot Jazz.







When did Jazz






 turn into Shockwave?






Hope he can bust a move like this Citroen C4...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 26, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Hope he can bust a move like this Citroen C4...



I knew that is going to bite us in the ass when comparing Citroen to Optimus.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Sep 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> IMHO, Megatron's form should be a weapon, reflecting his own character. Since it'd be silly to have him be a Walther PPK (as he was in G1) or a tripod space cannon (as Galvatron), the form that works best for him would be a tank.




I suspect the reason he seems to be a plane is so that he can be shown flying with the other Decepticons, and not just as a flying robot like he was in the cartoon. 

Not saying I'm a fan of the change (I'd prefer a tank, myself), but that's probably the rationale.

Maybe they should have made him some type of gunship? Some kind of helicopter? Or else just have some other Decepticons that are land vehicles as well (such as the Stunticons or Constructicons) and have the aerial Decepticons serve as air support. There's not really any reason to have all the Decepticons be some type of planes, after all.


----------

