>>6488117>1: Good animation for it's time.Eh, it has a neat color palette and some shots look decent in motion, but that's about it. As far as art goes, it's just fairly bogstandard animation for a 1980s sci-fi film, and it looks particularly mediocre when you consider it was made just two years before Akira. No one studies the 1986 Transformers film as an example of good animated cinematography in colleges, anon.
>2: Fairly "adult" storyline all things considered. Killed a whole bunch of bots, something that just didn't happen in kids franchises back then.More like, a fairly bostandard "we're running out of Diaclone molds and need to sell new toys so we'll just kill off almost every single major character" storyline. People who unironically think having a lot of characters dying is what makes an "adult" narrative, not the actual exploration of complicated adult themes like determinism or mortality (like Beast Wars does, for instance), are the reason why modern Star Wars and DC movies are trying so hard to be edgy without actually having anything besides a drama facade.
>3: Balls to the wall soundtrack.The Stan Bush songs are fucking terrible outside of the nostalgic context of the movie, the metal songs feel like tryhard discount versions of Iron Maiden and, while Vince DiCola has some decent synth tracks, he is hardly a Vangelis or a Moroder. Hardly anything holds up in the sound department.
So no, the 1986 film is nowhere near as good as you remember it to be, anon.
