You can't give 20 characters all good development in a two hour movie. Try it. For ROTF? Try doing it to 200. And don't get me started on DOTM. In every movie, it's the main characters who get the development, and the big ones (Optimus, BB, Megatron, Starscream, Sentinel, Everyone Else With A Speaking Role) did. (Of course the ones I named got the most.)
I think the only character to get true development was Sam. He's by far not my favorite, even of the human characters, but we actually saw him go through changes throughout the course of the films. I don't think that can be said for any of the Transformers, not even the main ones. Some is implied (we're told) or assumed (fanon-ized), but not shown. I also think that character development and/or more in depth characterization wouldn't have been a problem depending on the writer/director combo. For example, a Joss Whedon type could've likely brought out the best in several characters. A strong writer is capable of working with supporting characters as well as main characters.
The main character might get the most development, but that doesn't mean that with a few tricks of the trade that a production team can't make the minor characters into something memorable. In the Marvel movies Agent Phil Coulson is a bit player. Yet as a bit player it's still a big deal what happens to him in Avengers and it's the event the heroes needed to fight as a team. Or take Inglourious Basterds. The Germans in the little bar are just bit players in the movie. Yet thanks to a few film tricks you end up feeling sort of sorry for them when the bullets start to fly. It seems like a good team can make characters out of out of even the bit players, heck I've seen extras in some films that felt more like characters than some of the Decepticons. Given that you can tell a good story with character in a short film I don't think the number of characters or the length of the film was what was holding back the movies from having the robots as fleshed out characters.
Yes, it is, because DOTM is a key part of the franchise which cannot be simply brushed aside in a argument, especially if we're talking about the movie-verse as a whole [as this thread is] and not just one movie. It's like mentioning how they should never have killed off Spock when he was brought back in the following movie. Comparison doesn't fit. They're the villains, as a rule thumb, we always know less about them than we do of the protagonist. Instance: Take the original trilogy of Star Wars, Palpatine is actually the main villain of the three movies, yet we didn't even know his name at that point [he was just called "The Emperor"], nor his background, his origin, how he came to power, how he became a Sith Lord. We just know he's powerful and he's there. Hell, even in the prequel trilogy we know nothing about his past or how he came to be who he is, we just discovered how he became the Emperor. We just know one thing: He's a manipulative master of the dark side who seeks power for power's sake. Same with the Decepticons, we know what we need to know. I was making another point, I discussed why the characterization wasn't awful earlier, so I thought it'd be superfulous. I was just adding how costly their scenes are. How to decide which fights are necessary and which are not? Most fights actually are pretty important plot-wise. I merely think you're a 100% wrong regarding this matter, since I have stated my arguments for such, I will not repeat them. You want every thug to have a personality? That makes no sense. Will you also complain about the lack of character development in Admiral Piett? Or Stormtrooper N*23? Or Greedo? Or Jabba? Some characters are just lesser minions [like Scorponok] and as such they remain. I was talking about the higher-'Cons, Megatron, Starscream and Soundwave, the important ones. It's not a view, it's a fact, many people across our history have been in a similar situation that of Starscream, and many of them acted completely differently than he did. I am not really understanding what you mean. You said everyone would act just like Starscream did, I said many people in real life have been in the same situation and never acted like him. I never said they were people in the movies. It's like assuming everyone acts like Boba Fett because he was the only person seen in that position with Vader. Your argument just isn't making any sense to me, right now. I provided one example in the exact same part I mentioned: Soundwave. To both people above him and below him, he acts no-nonsense and to the point [unlike SS], No one acts like Starscream when talking to a higher-up, robots answering to Soundwave just silently comply in ROTF, Frenzy is completely normal with Barricade and Blackout [his superiors, technically] as well as the other Decepticons, all Decepticons just silently comply before the battle of Mission City, Scalpel is completely casual when talking to his superior [Megatron] in ROTF, among others. No, Megatron acts like an apprentice, clearly below him, but never as over-the-top as Starscream, he is much more comfortable and casual with The Fallen. He still is "stronger" than Starscream in DOTM, if only by authority. In their first scene, Starscream starts with the same over-the-top antics of always, Megatron basically tells him to shut up and get the Hell out of his sight, and Starscream silently complies. He never does that with Soundwave. I was just stating why that argument would never work. You'll always put him in a bad light, while I'll put him in a good light. Like when people talk about Luke Skywalker, some refer to him as a dumb annoying braty kid while others to him as inexperient conflicted young hero, both are just trying to enforce one view of the character. I could say the same about you. Megatron is never cowardly in the movie, yet you gave him that trait. And you explain my existence how, exactly? A Ghost in the machine? There are people who are fine with it just as there are people who are NOT fine with it. Same quantity. As well as many people who independantly came to the conclusion that the characterization is perfectly fine. Debatable. Completely opinion-based.
Total pawnage ! Nice examples ! That's the problem, DOTM is probably the only one movie which had major character development. Sure, we can't exclude it in our evaluation from the whole picture, but there's no way it's going to convince us all that it vindicated the franchise. How was Palpatine the main character ? I thought it was Darth Vader, with Luke cooming in second. again, explain step by step. The first battle between Optimus and Megatron could have ended so quick if Megatron wasn't playing around and just took down Prime with his fusion cannon. ROTF forest battle, again, stick a sword into Optimus when he's not looking or down. Battle with the Dreads, did it even have to be in a populated area ?! There are people in the streets ! i think he was talking about putting up posts. Not existentialism as you put it. Dude, LIFE IS UNFAIR ! That is how most people judge others : through first impressions ! Real-life works like that ! Not our fault we don't a give crap about them if they're just gonna be the same all the time. Of course Soundwave is different. You wanna confuse the kids ?! Plus if they did make Soundwave into Starscream 2, the writers would probably get death threats. I was always under the impression they added Soundwave as fan service, just like Shockwave.
You just...gloss over every other thing, huh? Main villian. Yeah, it's entirely your fault, personally, that you do not care to take the time nor the thought to make evaluations beyond knee-jerk responses you are unwilling to compromise on after you have made up your mind. If you are shortsighted enough to fully acknowledge that you judge entirely on first impressions, a philosophy totally inapplicable to fictitious evaluation, and say "tough nuts" when someone tries to convince you to take a closer look, then I am sorry, for you are a sad, strange little man.
So you're saying that movies can't establish their characters in just one or two movies? If so then that is just plain wrong. If you are somehow claiming that DOTM was planned out in advance, and the reason why they botched the characterization of the first two was to tie it together with the third movie then you are equally wrong. Terrible example. First off - Star wars was originally written as a single movie that was chopped up because the studio said it would be too long and they couldn't commit to that many movies from the get go, so they started in the middle of the story. The full original story focuses on the main villain (Vader, not palpatine, although we see his rise to power as well) As we follow the big bad guy from childhood, to teenager to young adulthood, we see why he made the choices he did, what corrupted him, how he acts as a middle aged man and up until his death...if that's not establishing a character I don't know what is. As for Palpatine, yeah...you just described his main traits whilst saying he has none, you could have added cruel and sadistic to the mix as well, and that he is the closest thing you can come to pure evil in the universe, so powerful with the dark side that he can shield himself from the jedi and take out 3 jedi masters fairly easily...quite the character bio, isn't it? Compare the death of Agent Coulson in Avengers with that of the decepticons in the transformers movies, just a background figure really - not even a main character...People reacted much more emotinally to Coulson dying than they did the Decepticons - because we don't know enough about them - we know so little that we don't care about them one bit. The only thing on the audiences mind is that it looks cool, because they can't relate to the characters dying. Debatable, and the ones you feel are necesary could be cut down instead of stricken from the script. Likewise...painfully so, reading your posts I can't help but feel like your blind loyalty towards the movies is acting like movieverse beer goggles. We were discussing MAIN characters, and yes I think that all MAIN characters should be the kind of characterisation that they gave Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han solo, Lando Calrissian, C3PO, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, Padmé, Jar Jar Binks, Qui-Gon Jinn, Shmi Skywalker, Watto & Yoda for example (oops, looks like it can be done) Ok, so when did we see Megatron and starscream relax in the first 2 movies? Alot of people have had their commander-in-chief go off by himself, without any bodyguards, crash on a foreign planet (even though he's a friggin spaceship), get captured by the inhabitants of that planet, hidden away under a dam whilst getting disected only to be freed by a bunch of blithering idiots? I think you'll find that a rarer occurance than you think it is. Just saying, if someone who is supposed to be the strongest has been treated like that and is royally pissed off about it...you're most likely going to act the same way. No, no - you got it right - doesn't have to be in the movie. So much wrong in that sentence...first off, Bobba fett isn't really a main character, he's a fleshed out supporting character. Secondly, you really need to start seperating personality from job roles. Would you expect other bounty hunters to act differently? I think that this explains why you are giving the decepticons alot of traits and characteristics that they don't have though, it seems like you enterpit everything they do as a part of their personality, which is just wrong - I'll give you an example: Soldiers all have their own personality and traits, but yet you see them running together in synchronised groups chanting back and forth - that doesn't mean that their characterisitics is running around in synchronised groups singing back and forth - they do that, but it's not a part of their personality, it's something they do because it is expected of them to do so because they are soldiers. Hopefully it makes more sense now See my example above - it's soldiers acting as soldiers is not individuals acting as individuals. Also, Soundwave isn't furious after the whole captured and disected for decades bit, taking it out on them. "My master, I have failed you on Earth. The Allspark is destroyed, and without it, our race will perish." - that is being casual? (esp the highlighted part) coincidentally, this is how SS reacted to it: "The boy will not escape us! We have him in our sights!" I'd say Starscream is alot more casual... So, to sum up - no he's not stronger. Erm...no - I don't spin it. And nobody would be happier than me if they actually get it right in the next movie, but as long as they don't then I will not pretend that his characterization sucks when it does. I mean even when you who try your best defend him try to characterize him you struggle and resort to describing him as angry as if being angry is a character trait. It's an emotion, every one get angry from time to time. It's pathetic characterization. No I didn't Ermm...I was talking about forum posts and you turn to discussing existensialism? Kind of a difference. Your existance has absolutely fuck all to do with alot of people finding the same flaws and expressing their opinion about those flaws. Think of it as any other type of compaint of a product. If you sell a car and then alot of people come back and complain about how the steering wheel is really tight and turning it is nowhere near as easily as it should be - not some other part or aspect about all the other parts of the car, just the steering wheel...then guess what - there's something wrong with the friggin design of the steering wheel. Same thing for the movies...if people complain about the characterization... So...If half of all the die hard fans of that particular brand of car is happy with the steering wheel in the previous example doesn't have a problem with it then it's no reason to believe that there is something wrong? same thing aplies to the movie...and I seriously doubt that if they had given them more fleshed out personalities in the first movies that the people who are OK with the characterization would go "wtf is this? I came to see transformers - the decepticons shouldn't have personalities, that's only for the humans and autobots" Everything is If it is, then how come defenders of the movie keep saying it over and over again? Why are people upset with the characterization? Looking at those two facts, it's really the only logical way to look at it.
Or take a film like Aliens. A squad of Marines that had nothing to do with the first film and other new characters added to the mix. Yet the film establishes the Marines enough that it puts the viewer on the edge of their seat as the Marines are attacked by the Alien warriors. Not a load of time with each Marine for a complicated back story but you still worry about who will make it and who will get killed. If villains are what people need as an example then Jaws from the James Bond movies. A character without any words but by Moonraker people are into the character enough to be caught up in his fate.
You're really complicating this far more than you should. I'm saying DOTM is important and shouldn't be tossed aside when regarding the franchise, after all, this thread is about the movieverse, not the first or second movie alone. It's all three of them. Secondly, I think ROTF was mostly a mess, so it's a bit of a problem that we are judging the entire franchise from one badly done movie and other that served mostly to introduce characters. You do realize you completely ignored the Palpatine example of the post, right? Regardless of Vader, Palpatine still fits perfectly well on what I'm saying. He is a effective, threatening good villain while having little to none background. And yes, Vader is fleshed out, because [even according to Lucas himself] he is the main character of the franchise, Megatron isn't[/]. That was not the point of the post [the whole "lack of background" was]. I could do the same to Megatron in a lenghty bio. Awful example. Coulson was, once again, a hero [Again, 'Cons are villains] among the Avengers, one who had appeared in a lot of movies before and became a breakout character among the fanbase, starred in quite a few short movies and was even introduced in the main timeline of the marvel Universe. A character created exclusively for the movies was introduced in the main Marvel Timelight. So no, Coulson wasn't just a background character, he was akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Boba Fett. Where's the impact of the Destroyer's death in Thor? Or Red Skull's in Captain America? Or Obadiah Stane's in IM? Or Vanko's in IMII? The point still stands. Grandum, I've beeen demonized in a moronic zombie troll who follows blindly a piece of trash in most of the boards. This is not the first time someone tries to say I'm a blindly loyal moron. And this is not the first time I will just sigh and move along, so let's just say your remark has been noted. Moving along.. Off-topic, Qui-Gon Jinn/Jar Jar? You liked the prequels? [no seriously, just asking, I am one of the few who liked the prequels, and it's really rare to find someone who likes it]. On-topic, by using your examples, we enter in the realm of "what would be good characterization", because you can be a pure-evil villain and be described as a good character [Palpatine and Tarkin, two SW examples], so what would you describe as good characterization? Your examples vary wildly in how they were characterized, we never even heard about the background of some of them [Watto and Jinn, mostly, as well as Lando if I am not mistaken]. Some of them barely changed across their journey [Jinn]. They were more or less relaxed aboard the Nemesis, in ROTF. You're over-specifying the matter, I meant "being the right-hand-man of a completely insane dictator that kills his thugs for no reason at all", basically, SS's situation. You can even add "for no reason and all AND invading a sovereign country" and you'll still have examples. ...And that would be faking a yes-man image in a over-the-top way? What? Point still stands, regarding relationships. I don't really think the comparison fits at all. If I am getting what you mean correctly, you're saying anyone in Starscream's position [Megatron's right-hand-man] would act exactly like him, including whining and screaming around like a lunatic. You're telling me right-hand-men of Megatron are taught and expected to do that? Even when none of his troops do anything similar? Even when his other right-hand-man [Soundwave] acts nothing like it? Hear their tone. Megatron is calm, collected, as if talking to a mentor. Starscream is sounding like a complete lunatic. We can't say that since they never fight along the movie. Very well. Being constantly angry is a character trait, otherwise Hulk would be an empty shell [I hate the Hulk, but that's not the point]. That's what I mean with "wrathful" or "angry", being pissed off constantly counts as a character trait. You did. I described Starscream as a "cowardly arrogant over-the-top actor faking a yes man image", you told me that characterization was Megatron's. You didn't get the point [though I admit, I wasn't clear enough]. The point is, you said that as if it were an unanimity among the fanbase, I was just illustrating how it doesn't make sense because people like me still exist. I'd say that's a bad comparison, since a steering wheel being tight is a far more fact-based aspect than characterization. On the case of characterization, it's perfectly possible for a lot of people to just be plain wrong, or just hating the director, or just having impossibly high standards, or resentment, or a billion other reasons [not your case, just illustrating]. On the case of the wheel, that's harder. Not the point. I think there's always room for improvement [and definitely IS room for improvement in the movies], the point here is if the characterization on the first two movies was sufficienttly good or not. They have their opinions, as well. Doesn't mean they're right. Opinions, opinions.
