Jump to content

look at these


Lord Atmo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ironhide and Megatron were both completely changed every time they appeared in something new. G1 Ironhide was a red van, Energon Ironhide was a blue pickup truck, and now movie ironhide is a black pickup truck. now look at megatron. the thing to understand about him is he's constantly evolving. he started out in armada as a mighty tank bot. then he gained energon power in energon and became the jet. then in Cybertron, he wore Unicron's essence as his armor. so what's the next step? now he starts to turn more demonic, but retaining the same style of face with movie alterations. i see "Megatron" when i look at him. and as far as new takes go with starscream. i can accept them usually. look at energon. starscream's persona was completely different. but he still looked and sounded like he always does. armada starscream was still slender like the SS character has become. yes i know his wings stick out from his shoulders. that's how he flies. armada at least doesnt give every single decepticon magical flight powers like G1 did.

 

as far as bulkier starscreams go, Cybertron screamer pulled it off while maintaining the essence he's always had. if bay had done to Starscream's head the same thing he did with Prime and Megs, maybe he'd have looked more recognizable and pay even a LITTLE bit of homage to his predecessors

 

:rofl As if that Armada robot design being able to fly was based on physics. Slapping wings on anything makes it aerodynamic!

 

*wipes tear from eye*

 

Ah, Atmo, you crack me up.

 

But seriously, I read this and thought of you. How's that for badass behavior? Still think his is a tradition worth honoring?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you forget it's TV. the presence of wings was the show's "excuse" to say why he could fly in robot mode and the others couldn't. of course there's no possible way the wings would let him fly in reality, but keep in mind that's a cartoon. wings or no wings, armada starscream was slender

 

pete, let me be honest, i feel ALL JET TFs should be slender to mirror the fact that they're jets that need to be shaped that way in order to fly. it's tradition, not obsession

Link to post
Share on other sites
pete, let me be honest, i feel ALL JET TFs should be slender to mirror the fact that they're jets that need to be shaped that way in order to fly. it's tradition, not obsession

 

That's sort of silly policy with regard to a franchise whose entire point is rearranging one's shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
you forget it's TV. the presence of wings was the show's "excuse" to say why he could fly in robot mode and the others couldn't. of course there's no possible way the wings would let him fly in reality, but keep in mind that's a cartoon. wings or no wings, armada starscream was slender

 

pete, let me be honest, i feel ALL JET TFs should be slender to mirror the fact that they're jets that need to be shaped that way in order to fly. it's tradition, not obsession

But what I'm saying is that Starscream wasn't slender. He had the same body as everyone else. It's in your imagination.

 

starscream.jpg

 

It's an optical illusion. The wide wings make him *seem* skinnier, when in reality he's just as bulky as anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there's nothing wrong with the autobots in this movie....

 

Okay, but look at the drawings in my link...slap the vents on either side of the head, and BOOM! Starscream. The same technique holds true for the bodies in the animation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have a question for Hobbes-timus Prime and Cuban Pete.

I understand both of you are generally in favor of the new movie designs and the point of view that the characters shouldn't just be recreations of their G-1 counterparts. To a great extent I agree with you. Aside from Frenzy and Starscream I don't mind any any of the movie designs, and I think some of them are bad ass to be honest with you. I also agree with you that people who defend the G-1 designs for no other reason then they're G-1 designs need a wake-up call.

Here's my question though. Is it possible that you're simply basing your defense of the movie's Starscream design for that reason, that it's the movie design? Like I said, I find most of the movie designs pretty cool, but they just dropped the ball on Starscream. There's no denying that the movie Starscream's very ape-like. Any way you cut it that's a bad thing. Starscream, in any incarnation, was never ape-like.

Take Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. They did fantastic jobs creating live-action versions of them that are much more realistic then their G-1 version, but at the same time capture their classic design. Would it have been so hard to do the same for Starscream?

 

So please, try to base your opinions of the movie models on a character to character basis, not just "movie versions=good, G-1 designs=bad." There's nothing wrong with liking some movie models while thinking other suck. Most of them, IMO, rule. Starscream just sucks any way you cut it.

Defending the new movie designs blindly makes you no better then people who defend G-1 designs blindly.

 

As for the comment that we don't know how Starscream will act, talk, etc... the writers have said that they kept the Starscream/Megatron dynamic from G-1 intact, so I think we can assume that the movie Starscream's character will be very close to the G-1 Starscream character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I have a question for Hobbes-timus Prime and Cuban Pete.

I understand both of you are generally in favor of the new movie designs and the point of view that the characters shouldn't just be recreations of their G-1 counterparts. To a great extent I agree with you. Aside from Frenzy and Starscream I don't mind any any of the movie designs, and I think some of them are bad ass to be honest with you. I also agree with you that people who defend the G-1 designs for no other reason then they're G-1 designs need a wake-up call.

 

Well said.

 

Here's my question though. Is it possible that you're simply basing your defense of the movie's Starscream design for that reason, that it's the movie design?

 

I won't speak for Pete, but I don't think that's the case for me. As adamant a hater of the movie model as Lord Atmo has admitted that the design would be fine if it wasn't Starscream. I've heard a lot of Anti-Bay-Scream people say that. Which, to me, speaks to the idea that there's nothing inherently wrong with the design. In fact, I think he looks pretty badass. He certainly looks like he'd wipe the floor in a one-on-one battle with any other Starscream to date.

 

Like I said, I find most of the movie designs pretty cool, but they just dropped the ball on Starscream. There's no denying that the movie Starscream's very ape-like. Any way you cut it that's a bad thing. Starscream, in any incarnation, was never ape-like.

 

But why does "he was never ape-like before" automatically make it a bad thing? I mean, there was a point where Megatron was never a T-Rex before, but that worked out.

 

Take Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. They did fantastic jobs creating live-action versions of them that are much more realistic then their G-1 version, but at the same time capture their classic design. Would it have been so hard to do the same for Starscream?

 

So please, try to base your opinions of the movie models on a character to character basis, not just "movie versions=good, G-1 designs=bad." There's nothing wrong with liking some movie models while thinking other suck. Most of them, IMO, rule. Starscream just sucks any way you cut it.

Defending the new movie designs blindly makes you no better then people who defend G-1 designs blindly.

 

Would it have been so hard to do the same for Starscream? I don't really know. Probably not. I don't see that as the issue, anyway. I personally, don't think the Starscream character works in a live action film. He's a whiny and comically ineffective warrior, and why he wasn't killed by Megs long ago remains a mystery.

 

Now, that works in a cartoon. I love Starscream in the cartoon. But when you've spent however many millions of dollars to render this guy on screen, and you've made deals with the military to get to be the first feature film to extensively shoot the Raptor for his alt. mode, do you really want the whiny, over-the-top coward on screen? Or do you want someone who can do some damage and pose a threat to your heroes?

 

Cause I don't think G1 Screamer ever posed a threat to anyone other than himself, and the occasional Decepticon plan. After all, he was the one who fired on the Ark in MTMTE, knocking Optimus into the Teletran-1 repair beam, and thusly awakening the Autobots on Earth. If he'd have thought before he acted, the Decepticons would've taken over this planet in a week's time.

 

Therefore, I'm expecting Movie Starscream's character to be vastly different from G1 Starscream, and that the almost complete redesign is to reflect that.

 

As for the comment that we don't know how Starscream will act, talk, etc... the writers have said that they kept the Starscream/Megatron dynamic from G-1 intact, so I think we can assume that the movie Starscream's character will be very close to the G-1 Starscream character.

 

And this is a good point, because I think the dynamic is distinctly different from the character's behavior. You can still have a strong leader and a treacherous second-in-command at odds with one another without one of them being an over-the-top cowardly whiner. And that alone is worthy of the name Starscream, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Find Transformers on Ebay


×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE