The Transformers Archive Skip to main content / Also skip section headers

[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]
Please feel free to log in or register.

 
  • transformers toys
  • transformers comics
  • transformers cartoon
  • transformers live-action movies
  • transformers fandom
  • transformers forum

Go Back   TFARCHIVE > TRANSFORMERS > Transformers News & Rumours

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-01-03, 10:13 PM   #41
Blitzwing's Ghost
Registered User
 
Blitzwing's Ghost's Avatar
 
Decepti-home Birmingham
Default

On the subject of emotions and alien faces, not all G1 characters had proper faces, e.g. Warpath, Cosmos, Bombshell, Shockwave and Optimus Prime to name but a few, and shockwave only had 1 eye on his entire face. I agree with Springer007 that human faces get boring after a while as do blocky people-shaped robots. The new 'chicken-legs' on Starscream give him an almost predatorial/reptillian look and you can imagine him crashing through some poor earthling town, giant super guns a-blazing shedding poor unsuspecting targets and scaring the crap out of anyone else while brawl just ploughs through everything else being big and tank-ish. As for ratchets new look, definitly can see him repairing a downed comrade with one hand and strangling a decepticon with the other.
I think Prime's head has retained the likeness to his G1 form because through every single incarnation of transformers (except machine wars), he's kept the blue-helmeted look with antenna/horns and the grey faceplate. Where if you look at Megs through the incarnations there have been changes greater than those on Prime.
 
Blitzwing's Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-03, 10:48 PM   #42
guitarded
Banned
 
Default

behold starscream!





 
guitarded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-03, 11:01 PM   #43
guitarded
Banned
 
Default

and megatron!....


 
guitarded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-03, 11:39 PM   #44
Brimstone
Unicron
 
Brimstone's Avatar
 
Houston, TX
Default

Prime's head is definately the most recognizeable as Prime. But all the Autobots have some sort of semblance to their G1 head sculpts (except for Ratchet). Jazz has his visor and ear spikes. Ironhide has his crest and mohawk. Bumblebee has his cute appearance with "horns" (really they look more like insect antennae, but I like it...helps with the name "Bumblebee" since he's not a VW Bug anymore).

The Decepticons...not so much. The only one with any sort of resemblance is Megatron's bucket head helmet. The rest are completely new (from what I can tell) but they look pretty sweet. I'm digging the hell out of the Decepticons (is this because the majority of them are less iconic characters than the Autobots chosen so that I can accept the changes more easily? I don't know...but Blackout and Barricade are friggin' cool!!)
 
Brimstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-03, 11:51 PM   #45
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by guitarded
I was under the impression that the transformers were sentient life forms!

Given that, emotions are part of
Only one of the definitions of sentience has to do with feeling, and that has to do with unstructured consciousness. In any case, there's no reason they'd exhibit human / bipedal / etc structure.

A good scriptwriter will supply a reason for them having those things, rather than going the route of 90%+ of bad sci-fi and just assuming everything mimics humans.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 01:32 AM   #46
guitarded
Banned
 
Default

Well,...Ummmm,.......they did come to "Earth", and disguised themselves as "Earth" vehicles, machinery,.......... and bugs no less.

I think they should have left the "alien- likeness" to protoforms and new characters. How's a scientist supposed to work with them sausage fingers?
 
guitarded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:10 AM   #47
Jaynz
Puppy Kicker
 
Jaynz's Avatar
 
Default

Quote:
A good scriptwriter will supply a reason for them having those things, rather than going the route of 90%+ of bad sci-fi and just assuming everything mimics humans.
Actually, having digested more bad sci-fi than anyone else here, I would say that 90%+ of it involves things that are 'alien' by virtue of being ~~strange~~ looking just for the sake of it.

Like these here bastard children of Guyver and Devil Gundam.

Besides, one of the things that endeared so many people to Transformers in the first place was specifically that the characters of the Transformers were so human-like in so many ways.
 
Jaynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:27 AM   #48
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

I think you're misreading slightly: if scriptwriters are capable and want to include humanistic behaviours and features, they'll supply in-universe rationales for those things. Not simply assume and present as a fait accompli.

One of Trek's rationales, for example, is galaxies being seeded by a more ancient race, leading to developmental parallels -- but that's further down the fictional road. Immediately, there's the implication that life evolved in a similar manner to humans in many cases (Klingon, Romulan, etc.)

Robots don't evolve biologically, unless presented as doing so.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:50 AM   #49
Jaynz
Puppy Kicker
 
Jaynz's Avatar
 
Default

I'm just saying that there wasn't really serious thought given to these forms (face it, they're incredibly flawed for what they're supposed to be, and the excuses for them are LEGION, despite the 'realistic' argument often cited). These were designed to be ~~strange aliens~~, explicitly stated as such in interviews, but no thought was given to WHY they work as they do.

Of course, you've got 90 minutes to work with, so I wouldn't expect MUCH in that department on screen, but it would have been nice for the art department to take their work more seriously, particularly after beating us over the head with 'realism'.
 
Jaynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:51 AM   #50
T.V.
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TFVanguard
Actually, having digested more bad sci-fi than anyone else here, I would say that 90%+ of it involves things that are 'alien' by virtue of being ~~strange~~ looking just for the sake of it.
It's the old alienoid =/= humanoid analogy that's being used.. and effectively, I might add.
Quote:
Besides, one of the things that endeared so many people to Transformers in the first place was specifically that the characters of the Transformers were so human-like in so many ways.
Not people, but children, to be more specific.
The cartoons and comics where always aimed at drawing in kids from ages 5 and up, so they'd want the toys of characters they could readily identify with.

However, this movie is aimed at a more mature crowed, seeing as it is PG-13 in nature.
And a more adult crowd needs to be catered to differently.
The movie goes for a more Jurrasic Park like mood and theme, therefore it needs to draw on different elements than the original cartoon and comic characters did, to fit the theme and mood of the movie.

Alienoid Transformers fit that chosen theme, irrespective of it being faithful enough to the original children's cartoon/comic format or not.


Being capable of showing emotion has little to do with being very humanoid in nature.
Just look at how R2D2 came across as joyful or fearful in Star Wars.
There's a lot more to getting emotion across then having humaniod faces.

Behaviour and certain movements can get emotion across as well, despite the subject not being very humanoid at all.
 

Last edited by T.V.; 2007-01-04 at 05:56 AM.
T.V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:58 AM   #51
Jaynz
Puppy Kicker
 
Jaynz's Avatar
 
Default

Quote:
However, this movie is aimed at a more mature crowed, seeing as it is PG-13 in nature.
You're not seriously going to say that this is geared towards 'adults' now and has a high-level of maturity? The script would disagree with you...

Quote:
Alienoid Transformers fit that chosen theme, irrespective of it being faithful enough to the original children's cartoon/comic format or not.
And, again, did I demand that it be G1 or follow the original format? But I do think that having the title-characters of the movie and franchise have next to no dialog, no ability to show emotions, and be ~~strange aliens~~~ is too much of a reduction to them.

As for their own asthetic, it's done. This isn't 'new' nor 'realistic', but the usual 'monster robot take' that has been around a few other movies. (The joints, in particular, are LIFTED right from Terminator). You may like them, and that's your business, but I honestly can't see that toy of 'Starscream' flying off the shelf.
 
Jaynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 07:11 AM   #52
T.V.
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TFVanguard
You're not seriously going to say that this is geared towards 'adults' now and has a high-level of maturity? The script would disagree with you...
It's a popcorn movie, like Jurrasic Park and Independence Day aimed at teenagers and up.
Fairly simple plot, heavy on the FX and other visual aspects.
Typical of the proven mainstream blockbuster route, and not of a saturday morning cartoon aimed at pre-teens.
Quote:
And, again, did I demand that it be G1 or follow the original format? But I do think that having the title-characters of the movie and franchise have next to no dialog, no ability to show emotions, and be ~~strange aliens~~~ is too much of a reduction to them.
They're still Robots In Disguise that are More Than Meets The Eye.

Who says anything about them having zero characterisation?
Orci said that that's still being worked on.

Also, you have to remember the context in which the movie characters will be introduced.
It's the intent to make the Transformers seem like omninous aliens at first.
Therefore they cannot recieve a good dose of characterisation (or dialogue) right of the bat.
It might be the principle reason why Bumblebee is mute, so that he can't say "don't worry Sam, I'm Bumblebee and I'm a good guy".
That's Prime's job, latter on in the movie, as we learn to distinguish between friend and foe, through Sam's eyes.
Also, with film being a visual medium, a lot of characterisation can be done with behaviour and gestures, rather than dialogue.
And the TFs don't need to be very humanoid for that.
It didn't hamper R2D2 at least.

Then there's the issue of running time.
You can't put a whole lot of characterisation in 120 mins, if you first want to sell the TFs as omnious robotic alien beings and have them progess into characters of their own right later on.
We'll learn that TFs are "more than meets the eye" on different levels, and this is one of them.
Quote:
As for their own asthetic, it's done. This isn't 'new' nor 'realistic', but the usual 'monster robot take' that has been around a few other movies. (The joints, in particular, are LIFTED right from Terminator). You may like them, and that's your business, but I honestly can't see that toy of 'Starscream' flying off the shelf.
It's 'new' for Transformers though, and it hasn't been implemented in mainstream live action cinema on this scale yet.

Terminators do look like functional robots, now do they?
They tried to do that as well with Transformers, which of course are Robots In Disguise.

Granted, the toys don't look as impressive as their CGI counterparts will be. And admittedly with the complexity inherent to the CGI models, it's difficult to distill them into 6" toys.

F-22 Starscream isn't a success waiting to happen, I have to say.
Maybe the coolness of his movie counterpart may alleviate that, since even the G1 cartoon made some cruddy toys wantable.

The movie isn't primarely designed to shift toys though.
It's designed to sell itself (and the new Camaro) before anything else.
The toys are a tie-in byproduct which Hasbro hopes to explore massively.
Paramount is more concerned about boxoffice numbers.
 
T.V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 04:15 PM   #53
Jaynz
Puppy Kicker
 
Jaynz's Avatar
 
Default

Quote:
Fairly simple plot, heavy on the FX and other visual aspects.
Typical of the proven mainstream blockbuster route, and not of a saturday morning cartoon aimed at pre-teens.
And, again, who said anything about it being a 'saturday morning cartoon'? And, your description of the movie also describes movies like 'Catwoman', 'Batman and Robin', and 'The Core'. All three are movies this particular team worked on, after all.

Quote:
Who says anything about them having zero characterisation? Orci said that that's still being worked on.
They say a lot of things, particularly in the 'don't worry, we'll improve it' department.

Quote:
Therefore they cannot recieve a good dose of characterisation (or dialogue) right of the bat.
They've got 90 minutes to do it, and they don't. They don't even bother. The whole point of the Transformers in the movie is to be 'kewl-props-that-cause-explosions'.

Quote:
It might be the principle reason why Bumblebee is mute, so that he can't say "don't worry Sam, I'm Bumblebee and I'm a good guy".
As explicitly stated before, it was done so the 'real' actors on the movie wouldn't have to spend time interacting with a prop marker.

Quote:
It didn't hamper R2D2 at least.
And 'Star Wars', this ain't. Maybe 'Attack of the Clones', if they're lucky.

Quote:
You can't put a whole lot of characterisation in 120 mins, if you first want to sell the TFs as omnious robotic alien beings and have them progess into characters of their own right later on.
That old cartoon did it, after a fashion, with 66 minutes over 20 years ago.

Besides, there is no later on, unless you really think we're getting two sequels in the box office? This is going to be lucky to get a DVD sequel. Seriously, even if this does manage to hit the 'high point' of Armageddon, it's going head to head with Shrek III, Spiderman III, Harry Potter, etc.

The movie, thus far, looks bad. So much so that the trailer was laughed at in theatres, Hasbro and Paramount are starting to distance themselves, and you can't find Speilberg's name anywhere on it currently. That is not a coincidence.

Quote:
Granted, the toys don't look as impressive as their CGI counterparts will be. And admittedly with the complexity inherent to the CGI models, it's difficult to distill them into 6" toys.
Oh no, the toys are as impressive as their CGI counterparts.

Quote:
The movie isn't primarely designed to shift toys though.
It's designed to sell itself (and the new Camaro) before anything else.
Again, no. This movie is designed to sell 'Micheal Bay'.

Quote:
Paramount is more concerned about boxoffice numbers.
No, they're currently concerned about recouping some expected loss.
 
Jaynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:18 PM   #54
Brimstone
Unicron
 
Brimstone's Avatar
 
Houston, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TFVanguard
The movie, thus far, looks bad. So much so that the trailer was laughed at in theatres, Hasbro and Paramount are starting to distance themselves, and you can't find Speilberg's name anywhere on it currently. That is not a coincidence.
Hmm...it got cheered at the theater I was at.

And I don't know what you're talking about with Speilberg not supporting the film. The whole Japanese trailer special...thing that you can find on YouTube has both Bay and Spielberg talking about this movie.

And...have you even seen the trailer!?! Just open your eyes and read, there's a whole 3 seconds where it says nothing on a black screen in the middle of the trailer except "and Executive Producer Steven Spielberg."

You don't like the movie, fine who cares. But I'm seriously sick of listening to you spew bullsh*t comments like this...like you have some inside scoop and yet your facts are always wrong.

Speculate all you want, but if you're going to do that at least don't add flat out lies to your speculation and pass them off as truth.
 
Brimstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:35 PM   #55
Springer007
Truth-bearer
 
Springer007's Avatar
 
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
Hmm...it got cheered at the theater I was at.

And I don't know what you're talking about with Speilberg not supporting the film. The whole Japanese trailer special...thing that you can find on YouTube has both Bay and Spielberg talking about this movie.

And...have you even seen the trailer!?! Just open your eyes and read, there's a whole 3 seconds where it says nothing on a black screen in the middle of the trailer except "and Executive Producer Steven Spielberg."

You don't like the movie, fine who cares. But I'm seriously sick of listening to you spew bullsh*t comments like this...like you have some inside scoop and yet your facts are always wrong.

Speculate all you want, but if you're going to do that at least don't add flat out lies to your speculation and pass them off as truth.
I don't know where he gets his facts either. This film was cheered at Lackland AFB for the United States Air Force lending their aid with the C-130 Hercules air craft.... Please TFVanguard, give us some sources where you get your "information". I think out of the whole base where I was at, 3/4 of the people who knew what Transformers was, liked the idea of the film and the USAF aid. If the government didn't back this film, like Pearl Harbor (which I liked too btw), then it would not be worth it's mettle to even think of lending the aid of the USAF.
 
Springer007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:38 PM   #56
numbat
Legends Class
 
numbat's Avatar
 
Scotland, UK
Default

Quote:
it's going head to head with Shrek III, Spiderman III, Harry Potter, etc.
Hmmm... funny thing is I have no interest in seeing those, or the 'etcs'.

Of course, I will no doubt be in the minority there!

Still, I think the trailer does a great job of selling the film as a thing to see to a wide audience, and may have come out in the nick of time.

And I would expect most folks to be looking for a film where the Transformers are 'kewl-props-that-cause-explosions'. Preferably big explosions. After all, that's what summer blockbusters are. (You can't tell me Pirates of the Carribean 2 was an intellectual piece... )

But then, I'm presently looking forward to The Last King of Scotland and Babel...

(Although I doubt they'll deliver on niftty bots and fun toy tie-ins...)

Achtly well...

If we get one niftfty looking film that's fun to vegetate infront of out of all this, I'll be perfectly happy.


 
numbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:43 PM   #57
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by T.V.
Being capable of showing emotion has little to do with being very humanoid in nature.
But they're trying to sell a line of toys off the back of it.

Good voice acting might pull it off.

Quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
You're not seriously going to say that this is geared towards 'adults' now and has a high-level of maturity?
PG-13 --> aimed at mid-teens. Not the six/seven year olds of the shows. Of course, as a toy company they're hoping that six/seven year olds get to see it anyway, shaping it into a rating suitable for parents to accompany their kids to.

Quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
The whole point of the Transformers in the movie is to be 'kewl-props-that-cause-explosions'.
Yup.

Well, unless it's been totally rewritten. There's a bit of character focus on the Autobots at the end, but otherwise the TF characterisation is mostly interaction between Shia and his talking car, plus Decepticons killing and threatening things.

Pretty sure Spielberg's got his name on it still. Mind you, he's got his name on AI.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 05:49 PM   #58
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Springer007
I don't know where he gets his facts either. This film was cheered at Lackland AFB
An air force base is a representative audience? For a film that features armed forces getting to blow some stuff up and not be roundly humiliated by alien invaders?

The first trailer was reported as eliciting derisory laughter in some theatres. Dunno about the second one... it's probably done better by not being a moonlanding scene, flash of wireframe and 'THE TRANSFORMERS BY MICHAEL BAY' in big letters on the screen.

Certainly more of my test audience -- the people I went to uni with / grew up with -- are up for the film after a second trailer.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 10:12 PM   #59
LKW
Gestalt
 
LKW's Avatar
 
fray-adjacent
Default

I think TF Vanguard is expressing some very reasonable concerns about what the movie will be. “Props that cause explosions” isn’t a complaint about it being an action movie; it’s a concern that there are serious indications that this movie would be more accurately titled “The Humans! …guest cameos by some poorly-designed, weird-for-weird’s sake characters we’re calling the Transformers.” It appears that the movie may be about Shia LeBouf, Michael Clarke Duncan, and whoever, running around, and once in a while, a Transformer will show up and chase a human, or possibly even say something. If the final product is close to what’s been leaked, there may be almost as little TF appearance in the movie as there is of Godzilla in some of his “see you in the first five minutes, then I’ll disappear for the next fourty five” films. If you want to see a movie about some humans, and how those humans deal with encountering some aliens, then fine; but, if you want to see a film starring and about the Transformers, indications are that this may not be what this picture will deliver. (And really, might it be cost-prohibitive to have that many CGI characters featured in starring roles in a live-action film? Or has the tech gotten to a point where that wouldn’t be a consideration?)

And, Vanguard’s clearly not saying “it’s too different from the cartoon/G1/whatever”. He’s saying that the designs they’ve gone with don’t appear to have good thought behind them, not that they’re bad BECAUSE they’re different. He’s not saying that change is bad; he’s saying these designs are, on their own merits.
 
LKW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-01-04, 10:21 PM   #60
Clogs
has retired, boo-yah!
 
Clogs's Avatar
 
Leicester, in the Heart of England
Default

Bought - ulp! - Cybertron OP today in Argos sale, to squirrel away to give to Scraplet 1 on the momentous occasion of his reaching double figures in March. Well, I got Wing Saber for him, so I thought...heck, why not..? As you do.

Anyways, the store member assisting self went a little strange when he saw OP; it reminded him that he had a box full of G1s at his mums. Then he asked me if I knew there was going to be a movie, and his eyes glinted.

Movie may be aimed at mid-teens, but there are twenty- and thirty-somethings out there itching to relive their childhood in a more adult manner. An big explosions are considered de rigeur.
 
Clogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
 
 
[the-hub.co.uk]
[transfans.co.uk]
[oneshallstand]
[unicron.com]
[counter-x.net]
[ntfa.net]
[allspark.com]
[transformertoys.co.uk]
[tfu.info]
[botchthecrab.com]
[obscure_tf]
[tfradio.net]
 

[TFArchive button]
Link graphics...

BOOKMARK US
Or in FF, hit Ctrl+D.