that megatron toy is.... horrible...

please tell me thats not the model for the third movie.

Am i the only one getting a very Gundam Exia Repair vibe from that toy.

you know, the tarp over one damaged arm and the mangled face...

salkafar, i hope you don't mind, i placed those images into a spoiler tag.

i agree about the bayformers design being too complex.

I actually think that complex design was a cop-out.

it was a way to avoid having to make the transformation actually fit.

nobody can look at optimus prime and determine wether his legs are too long to fit in truck mode or if anything else is out of whack.

for me, that part is a big disappointment, because i always loved the concept of seeing where things went and how they changed position etc.

No, of course I don't mind...

But you are wrong about the transformation being a cop-out. The computer models are exact. Everything goes somewhere.

Look!

Edited January 16, 201115 yr by Salkafar

well thanks for the video, but those animations make it look more like a cop-out.

the general shapes do seem to be travelling from one place to another, but various pieces seem to be growing out of nothing into much larger and more prominent pieces,

well thanks for the video, but those animations make it look more like a cop-out.

the general shapes do seem to be travelling from one place to another, but various pieces seem to be growing out of nothing into much larger and more prominent pieces,

I'm not seeing it.

It would defeat the whole point of the exact models.

i don't think it would defeat the point because the way i see it, they made them over complicated just so that they could cheat in places.

that is the whole point as far as i am concerned.

they added all these little weird pieces onto the robots to make them look too complicated just so people couldn't study them and see that bits didn't quite fit.

I don't think they are exact at all.

but that is only because as far as I know they have not ever shown a steady shot where you can clearly see one form go to another and see exactly where each piece is going.

my whole premise is based on the fact they purposely move the camera around too much and don't give you a decent view.

while that youtube clip is interesting, it is so small and not very clear and after viewing it about 50 times, I am still struggling to figure out where certain bits are meant to have come from.

I don't think they are exact at all.

Ryuki, I was just being polite. What I mean to say is: you are wrong. They ARE exact. Every cubic millimeter is accounted for.

Edited January 18, 201115 yr by Salkafar

i don't think it would defeat the point because the way i see it, they made them over complicated just so that they could cheat in places.

If they just made the models simple and smooth for example, or like the animated (drawn animation) ones then people these days would be going 'what a cop out' and would not watch.

There may be some cheating, there may not be some cheating, go ask a mechanical eng or a modeller to work through the 3D application of the transformation but never forget: 1. This is a movie, they are after something that looks good and 2. Hollywood IS an illusion.

I don't think they are exact at all.

Ryuki, I was just being polite. What I mean to say is: you are wrong. They ARE exact. Every cubic millimeter is accounted for.

that's a fairly hollow post without clear evidence to back it up. please don't make posts like this, it is rude.

this is not even on topic anyway, I stated my opinion, it's not your place to tell me whether my views are right or wrong. if you post again without reasonable and clear evidence, I shall have to ask another moderator to look at this case (as I am clearly biased.)

Clearly, the transformation sequence for the bayformers might be much more accurate compared to that of the G1 transformers that we all got used to. I mean, how in the world would Megatron, who is the size of a giant robot, transform into a small handgun that can fit into the arms of a human?

I think that the problem with the bayformers is that the moving parts are too small that allows "cheating" thus giving the illusion that they can transform into anything they want. But comparing the toys nowadays and the toys of yesteryears, the transformation sequence is much more accurate. Buy a toy and you'll see that the robot and vehicle form of the toy are very similar to the movie version as opposed to those made many years ago. I think what the transformation sequence lacks is finesse. They are crude and ugly. Some hate the new transformation sequence because they are used to the slick movement of the parts when they transform. Whether they are accurate or not is something we cannot give a solid confirmation because we cannot see exactly where which part goes, only bits and pieces. They should learn a thing or two from the Japanese.

i was thinking about the same thing yesterday. the japanese have been doing live action transformers for years with sentai, and 9 times out of 10 you can always see where all the bits are going during transformation, and once transformed you can see where each part came from. it cant be too much of a stretch to use similar, but not so playschool, techniques for the transformers movies.

i mean, it took me playing with the optimus prime dx toy to realise that unlike the g1 cartoon, his feet actually come from the engine at the front, while his arms come from the back, like a reversal of g1. oh and can someone answer me this, i'm pretty sure bayformers bumblebee's head is stored in the engine section at the front (thats where it appears to sprout from during transformation). if his head is there, then what the hell did michaela see when she examined his engine in the first movie? considering she's supposed to be a car expert, i can only surmise that the back of bumblebee's head is a perfect replica of that cars engine...

Um... what?

Ryuki, we weren't having a discussion. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

"To give you some sense of just how big Devastator is, Farrar said that Optimus Prime has 10,000 moving parts. The computer algorithms actually manipulate each part to go from truck to standing robot."

http://blastr.com/2009/06/how-the-giant-robot-fx-in.php

I really don't understand your point. One of Bay's issues was to make sure no "cheating" would occur. Every single part is accounted for.

Actually Ryuki, Salkafar is right. Just watch the behind the scenes for the first Transformers movie.

Um... what?

Ryuki, we weren't having a discussion. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

"To give you some sense of just how big Devastator is, Farrar said that Optimus Prime has 10,000 moving parts. The computer algorithms actually manipulate each part to go from truck to standing robot."

http://blastr.com/2009/06/how-the-giant-robot-fx-in.php

I really don't understand your point. One of Bay's issues was to make sure no "cheating" would occur. Every single part is accounted for.

next time, start with that please.

it would save a lot of bother don't you think?

rather than posting a rather unclear and tiny video that supports nothing.

I don't appreciate having spent all that time studying that tiny video to try and find common ground with you, when you could have just given me solid proof.

next time, start with that please.

it would save a lot of bother don't you think?

rather than posting a rather unclear and tiny video that supports nothing.

I don't appreciate having spent all that time studying that tiny video to try and find common ground with you, when you could have just given me solid proof.

Wow, you sure have got some amazing perseverance to analyze that complicated transformation sequence. I just cannot emphasize enough how ugly the transformation sequece of the bayformers. They have this industrial looking feel to them which makes them look rough and crude. Well, at least it's not Gobots transformation.

All the hating on Bayformers!

You guys! Tell me this is not beautiful!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_G96gxvrHqrE/Smp0hjKxIpI/AAAAAAAAHLY/GYK6i51aHto/s1600-h/TF2BusterOptimusPrime1.jpg

Edited January 20, 201115 yr by Salkafar

Trailer is out!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/125703-watch-the-transformers-3-super-bowl-spot

youtube video is better

that site you linked.. couldn't get it to work. scripts and all that.

but thanks for posting, i wouldn't have known otherwise.

that is a interesting trailer indeed. i wonder what is happening to earth, those cities look odd, I can't make it out properly.

New York.

bobby, i think we're gonna need more than a two word post to figure out just exactly what you are saying and who you are saying it to.

I'm sure I've spoken to you about that before.

One of the cities was New York. Someone mentioned not recognizing the city.

nice. i spy a dinobot and prime's back!!!!!! with a sword or axe??? better be an energy axe

First film was ok.

Second was horrible. The only good scene was Sideswipe at the start, and Optimus owning like 3 Decepticons at the same time.

This one will be... MAYBE better than second... Aslong as they leave out pointless humour.

Devestator did NOT need testicles, and Sam's mother did NOT need to get high... Horrible horrible horrible. Also, WHY DID SAM GO TO AUTOBOT HEAVEN???

You guys! Tell me this is not beautiful!

http://home.comcast.net/~mathewignash/images/csoptimusprime.jpg

Fixed it for ya

new trailer!