QUOTE(RavageX-9 @ Feb 17 2009, 06:08 AM)
QUOTE(Quintesson #1 @ Aug 19 2008, 05:03 PM)
The style and concepts would be similar to my GeeWun and GeeTwo designs:
- Simplicity over complexity where it isn't needed
- Obvious vehicle parts used
- Developing and implementing 'new' Transformer engineering techniques. Example: Panelling used to create a 'closed box' form without it being an actual solid box; Interlocking / overlapping panels for armour
- Attempt to homage where possible without conflicting with reality. Example: no mass shifting allowed, but: colorscheme and head inspired from old design
- Attempt to use existing cutlines on vehicles where possible
Overall a somewhat 'traditional' or 'conservative' Transformer look in terms of body layout and part appearance, just way more complex. I'd thus like to focus this discussion on how you could create/engineer such a look realistically.
I'm not sure I understand this at all...
1) what determines "need" as far as complexity?
2) obvious in what way? used in what way?
3) that seems needlessly complex, which goes against #1.
and what's realistic? Is it to be that all passenger areas are empty, while all areas that are covered but normally can be opened (like engines and trunks) will not look at all like the real thing, but instead be full of Transformer parts? Will you even want empty passenger areas, or are they only supposed to be disguised from the outside?
Will point #4 mean that simplicity will not sacrifice homage? I would think realism and simplicity would require that we don't have parts needlessly being flipped and moved to the opposite end merely for aesthetic reasons like "I wanted the cockpit to turn into a foot because it looks like a foot."
1. Complexity in the current movie designs is overdone. Parts are cut up to such an extend that it's useless kibble. The Movie Frenzy design is a very good example of this, the complexity is done as eye candy, because complexity suggests sophistication to non-engineering folks. It's in fact the other way around. It's not NEEDED to make it work. So
need as in neccessity to make something work. Thus, done if it's a
requirement or improves something.
If you compare that stance to what's used in the TF movie for stylation is done mostly because movies are all about looks and impressions, not about actual engineering. I'll cite two extremes in stylation for sophistication:
A. Overengineering: Transformers movie designs: complexity for the sake of complexity. Making something look extremely complex to such an extend that it can't be understood in one go. The audience can't wrap its mind around it. It's made to look such that you have little idea how something would work apart from perhaps a few hints, but because there are so many parts, you'll suppose they all have a function whereas they do not if you take a closer look.
B. Underengineering: (magically) making things work. Wall-E's a good example of that. Not Wall-E himself, but his love. Wall-E is made to look more complex there to show it's an aged design. All the newer robots are made smooth, with floating parts, lasers etc. You don't need to understand it's physics, because it looks technologically advanced: you'll assume a new technique has been used.
2. Obvious vehicle parts would be that you don't cut up everything into unrecognizable bits so you can use a secondary model that didn't actually transform. Like the movie does, if you didn't notice at times. So no cutting up of tires for example, it'd compromise their main function: driving. If you're going to use them in the design as having a double function, use them such that their alternate function isn't compromised.
3. Why should it be conflicting to create flexible armour if you've got tons of thin sheet material and you NEED a design with a minimum amount of flexibility, while being protective of the inside as well? There's a minimum level of complexity. It doesn't mean you should take this to the extreme by cutting up every piece and requiring 5 million levers. It's about balancing and compromising between requirements. Any design is. Yes some requirements will conflict. That's what happens in engineering designs all the time and why one has to make design decisions.
I already illustrated with my "GeeWun" Prime and GeeTwo Megatron how you could use for example the normally rigid outer plating of whatever vehicle they happen to be to create a flexible armour. It's a compromise between protection and flexibility requirements where both are important and conflicting. Yet it IS possible to achieve both, be it that you will have to compromise. It's common sense. The actual movie designs are too poor designs for heavy duty combat as they seem based on extreme part flexibility. It seems (to me anyway) extremely unlikely those designs could survive millions of years of war without any vitals being hit though. Their protective level is far too low.
4. Look at Binaltech and Alternators, they all got trunks, engines, etc, yet they're not engines. That's realistic enough, isn't it? (Safe the few parts that are visible like the upper legs in Alt Smokescreen), obviously those would require some retooling). I do question the amount of 'hood popping' that would be happening in a movie though. I think one should make the comparison to KITT more than to 'random car'. You're not going to have the same parts everywhere as you would in a normal car anyway, that's impossible. The amount of disguise can only go 'so far', where that line is drawn is probably dependent on your transformation and type of vehicle (the space you have to work with). I personally would expect the heads to be intact as the cpu/brain needs to be fully protected in both modes. Besides, not much alternate functionality you can do with say the eyes in vehicle mode, is there? Besides, do they
need to have the exact same trunkspace too? Isn't that a bit too convenient and unrealistic? If it's possible, sure. But you're gonna have to stash joints and all somewhere. Looking at what needs to be stored, the innerds aren't going to be the same as that of another car. At most you could have superficial stuff that hides the presence of other parts (for example, gun turning into an engine block on top of/interlocked with other parts).
The homage point is made so that - to the extend where logically possible - you'll try to homage the original character. This has implications on multiple things, but it's basically the difference between doing a full redesign of the entire character to the point you've got yourself a new character (Movie Scorponok), opposed to an altmode change because the old one isn't used anymore, doesn't make sense or not available (gun Megatron vs say... tank Megatron, jet Megatron or My First Piebakery Megatron). Homages would also apply to basic colourschemes and head designs (instant recognizability). For example, red Ironhide vs black Ironhide. Why use black if you can do red just the same? Faceplate vs no faceplate, basic configuration, etc.
If however, functionality becomes a problem, then functionality goes first. The idea is to bring the character to the big screen realistically, thus some change is unavoidable. Classics, Animated, Alternators all changed a lot of the characters too, but most of them are always instantly recognizable because they were designed with homaging in mind.
The same can't be said for the movie designs, for their primary goal was to make them look more alien and monstrous for marketing purposes: differentiate this property from the "kiddie stuff", as well as shocking the audience a bit more. Thus, in their design philosophy, homaging is not really wanted and would be counterproductive because it would suggest childish. That's something I strongly disagree with. It's one option, but not the only one as they claimed to defuse fan critique. It's a little strange how many people in the fandom parroted them, I'm assuming mainly because they never saw a serious alternative either.
Which is why I want to explore some alternatives, before everyone starts believing a stupid Hollywood claim to cover their own arses.
Also, if you simply don't see the point of this project, then please, just ignore it.[/i]
Other areas (Europe/Middle East, etc) may also be used as starting points.
