If the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies had continued on forever instead of three and done then people would be complaining. Even with a rouge gallery the size of Spiderman's we be on someone like Hypno Hustler at this point because killing off villains would bump off the A list fairly quickly.

Or imagine if Warner Brothers was like Paramount with no reboots, do you not think people would be up in arms because no reboots means their favorite Batman villains are gone for good?

The movie studios want to be like the comic books with hey we can just have a series run forever. But they have totally missed the point that the reason that comic books could do the big long runs is because villains were always finding a way to come back to cause trouble another day.

Every now and then movies will kill off a villain and it feels like it's something deep and profound that makes for a great movie moment. But too often it just feels like lazy writing by someone who didn't have a creative idea so screw it just kill them because we don't have any other ideas.

 

Oh you mean the relationship that he had with Spike that began in the second episode and developed through the rest of the series... That was something that happened, right?

 

And will you please stop being a condescending dick? No one is treating Transformers like it's high art. We just want more substance than "Pow-pow boom-boom crash-crash", and it's frustrating that the humans get more actual character.

And really? TF has NEVER had depth or character arcs? Hey, let me tell you about this show from the '90s where they turned into apes and rhinos and dinos and arachnids.

 

I love Beast Wars, but you are overstating the characters' "depth". Try showing that series to someone who isn't already in love with the franchise and see if they notice all the depth. See if they see the miles of difference between that and the Bay movies. Other than Dinobot switching sides in the first episode and Blackarachnia later, which characters really grew or changed all that much from the beginning of the first season to the end of the third, other than getting new bodies? Cheetor still acted like Cheetor. Megatron was no different in personality. Hadn't grown. Hadn't learned anything. Primal was the same. Rhinox: no different. Rattrap, exactly the same guy he began the series as. Waspinator, Scorponok, Terrorsaur, Tarantulas... nothing.

So yeah, great show, a fun show, and I love it. but it's still a kids' cartoon with thin characters. The writing on the show was good FOR A CARTOON. But you still can't hold it up next to anything aimed at grown people.

As a comic reader of more than 40 years, that is one of the WORST aspects of super-hero comics. It's the reason nothing feels important or meaningful. Because there's no ending and nothing can ever really happen to the characters. That's not something worth emulating.

 

 

I mean it's funny because it's true. While Hound was always a loyal soldier to Prime, he actually does go from hating all humans to respecting and caring for the Yaegers as the film goes on. That is something at least.

Was Hound the deepest character ever? No, but he didn't need to be, nor should he be. To me he was fun and relatable and lovable. The same is the case for the other members of the Pathetic Dirty Foursome. I don't want every character (especially in the case of Transformers) to be deep and brooding and full of lamentations over things that happened when they were younger.

 

You have IDW if that's what you want in Transformers  

I doubt it was intentional, but AoE Hound is kind of the opposite of his G1 self, who loved Earth and humans and was not a front line combatant, but a scout and someone who used diversionary measures (his illusions).

 

Regardless of the lack of the "Rogues Gallery" BS that keeps getting tossed around, there are plenty of other villains that can come in and take control of that role.

I mean, we're comparing these to actual comic book movies, but there's two that are recent (or releasing soon) that have the heroes fighting each other.

If I wanted that shit, I'd watch Super Sentai and/or Kamen Rider.

And in regards to villains lasting another day, the entire notion is ridiculous. It was stated that the real reason Batman never killed anyone was because they wanted an excuse to make the comics as long running as possible. But you don't need one villain (or a gallery) to do that.

New villains are made all the time. Some are better than others at being all villain-y and evil-y.

 

I'm gonna be that guy, but the major villain in Bloodsport was NOT killed off. He was made to submit; and in fact the villain had been chastised (but it must be said, not punished) by the tournament elders for killing a man in the ring since senseless death isn't what they're there for.

And in the strictest sense, neither do the villains in Aliens and Robocop since the Queen drops an egg into the Sulaco and OCP is still around respectively. I agree with the idea that the villain escaping yelling "I'll get you next time, Gadget" isn't appropriate for films as a general rule though.

That was more them realizing that Bumblebee was going to be the kid appeal character and switching horses, but since it happened within the first five episodes of an entirely episodic series the continuity (Hah!) issues were negligible to the point of non-existence. And in fairness to them, once they'd stuck Spike with Bumblebee, it was a pretty consistent partnership.

 

Also, DOTM killed off the headliner villains, like Starscream, Soundwave and Shockwave. ROTF killed Devastator, another big villain. Outside of the B-listers and other combiners, there ain't a lot left (unless they draw inspiration from more recent sources, like Lockdown being loosely based on the TFA version).

 

Don't get me wrong, I love IDW's MTME, but at the same time I wouldn't want a Transformers film or show to be exactly like that.

I agree Hound is little like his G1 self, but that doesn't mean I don't love the guy. I love AOE Hound for being AOE Hound. Truthfully, given the fourth movie's context I don't think a Hound exactly like G1 would have worked. One of my favorite G1 characters is Beachcomber, but he wouldn't have been a good character for AOE either. I kind of think the film needed Autobots that were more rough around the edges regardless of whether one likes the specific Autobots of AOE or not.

 

I don't mind different interpretations of characters - for as flawed as Armada was, Starscream betraying Megatron out of jealousy and wanting to dethrone him turned into genuine affection for the Autobots (and was the springboard for tons of creepy fanfics starring him and Alexis). Or how Prime Bulkhead was the bruiser of the team, but genuinely smart, while TFA Bulkhead was kind of the big dumb heavy hitter stereotype.

It's just when you have radically jarring characterizations you lose me. Like Optimus - who usually believes in taking a life is a last resort in other versions - has a decapitation fetish in the films. And his uncharacteristic turning of his back on humans in AoE. I think most can agree we need less focus on the humans and more on giving the robots good (and consistent!) characterization.

 

That's actually why AOE Prime is my favorite version of Movie Optimus. He actually has a really, really good reason for not trusting humanity and for being angry and for losing his faith in humanity. It showed how much he actually cared for his fellow Autobots. In the end it was Cade's friendship that made him realize that humanity was still worth protecting. Despite his understandable rage, it also showed that he still was reasonable and capable of self control; he didn't attack any humans at KSI, and he doesn't let Hound kill Joshua even though Mr. Joyce knew what he was doing. Heck, the only human he actually kills was about to kill his friend. Even during the barn breakout he tries not to shoot the Cemetery Wind humans directly.

I know not everyone agrees, and I don't expect you to, either, but at least we can understand where we're coming from and what we want and what we like.

And of course, as Transformers fans we universally want more Transformers screen time as time goes on, and I do feel like we have gotten much more as time goes on, so I hope and do expect the next film to have more than its predecessors.

 

Because you are talking about cartoons. For kids.

How many wars in real life are conducted with the taking of lives of enemy soldiers as a last resort? It's a silly idea.

"Let's let a war continue unabated for millions of years, with destruction stretching across the galaxy, because at the end of each fight, we allow the enemy to gather up all their forces -- unhurt -- and return home safely so that we can begin the entire process again tomorrow." That isn't a war. That's cartoon roughhousing.

And again, in the cartoons, Optimus never had to deal with repeated betrayal from humans, leading to the deaths of friends of thousands, if not millions, of years. In the cartoons, his human allies were always nice, unflinchingly loyal, and unconditionally supportive. There was never any cause in the cartoons for Optimus to lose faith in humanity.

 

I'll take goofy cartoon antics over grimdark.

I'm beyond jaded from all the "heroes" nowadays who are morally gray and sometimes just as bad as the eviltons, if not worse.

You know, clear-cut, undeniably good heroes and such are actually the minority these days. And all the grit and darkness gets tiresome.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying characters who are black and white in their motivations and morality.

 

I guess the question is whether you see Transformers more as a war story or a super-hero story. It sounds like you'd prefer to think of them as super-heroes. Which is fine. If that's what you want them to be, a case can be made for it. But the live-action movies are working from the premise that it's a war.

Sure. If you're 5. Or operating out of nostalgia. I can enjoy things on that level. Like the old Flescher Superman cartoons or something. But it's a simplistic, naive, and dangerous way to go through life, because reducing everything to black and white and not acknowledging the greys in life and other points of view, leads to the "us versus them" mentality that is at the root of so many of the world's problems.

 

The problem is you're comparing it to grit and grimdark, when in actuality it's more realistic than anything.

War never changes.

 

I don't know why it's such a bad thing to enjoy the simpler goodies and baddies over something like IDW's take, where the Autobots are basically horrible and their autocratic rule was the genesis of the war.

But hey, to each his own.

 

I'm pretty sure no one has said it's bad to like the G1 approach to things. It seems like critics of movie Prime are just complaining to complain and will say that he acts the way he does because Michael Bay has a hard on for murder despite being easily and clearly explained by examples in the films themselves. They have been brought up numerous times and yet the same arguments keep getting used.

 

What was it? 10,000 years of war? Sure, I'd let things slide too all because of morality.

 

Why does this topic even exist it's a complete waste of time. Better villains Lockdown and Sentinel say hi. More robot screen time AOE called. Less toilet humor ROTF was seven years ago not two. Better robot characterization, well Optimus, why is he so ruthless why did he lose faith in humans? You wanted development, Optimus should never kill in cold blood or abandon humans, then how do we develop him? Megatron, why is Megatron so weak he's not a bad ass? He got gradually weaker and fell from Grace, you know development. Megatron should not be weak like that but that's the point he gradually loses all his power, That's stupid, then how exactly do we develop him?

That's what the creators are thinking you don't want developed characters you want cool characters you claim the stories are messy but only think that because the only movies liked are simplistic ones. At the beginning of this thread someone said most of marvel's movies are generic action films minus WS. WS is solid proof that most people don't know a deep story anymore, don't believe me well sit back and let me show you.

Everything complex and multi layered about the plot WS tosses in the garbage. Steve's morality was never challenged in Winter Soldier the debate between him and fury about the helicarriers pointless the whole debate about freedom and security thrown aside the moment Hydra is revealed it's not about freedom and security the helicarriers are just Hydra's doomsday weapon. A potentially complex morally gray conflict is thrown aside for a very clear good and evil plot. Steve was right no debate. His struggles with Shield meaningless shield is shady but only because it's controlled by Hydra another debate thrown out the window Steve is right again. Steve decides to dismantle shield and no one opposes him on this. There was no moral struggle at all Steve's morality was all consuming no one else's view mattered.

Character arcs Steve's biggest arc in WS was Bucky and that only got the museum scene, discovering his identity, the flashback and the fight only one of those are full on character scenes. Yet this movie has better character development than AOE, uh how exactly? How on Earth is Steve being right about everything and his two scenes with Bucky and one scene with Peggy better than Optimus? How is the race to stop Hydra's doomsday weapon better than the Autobots being hunted. Both movies involve the heroes being hunted but WS is just a race to stop Hydra there is nothing else going on until the end, Age has more plot. Same with emotion the Peggy scene, the Bucky reveal and flashback and the fight, Age has way more emotion.

Everyone says WS has the better story but how, how does a movie where it's hero is always right his morality is never questioned the character arcs have only a handful of scenes dedicated to them. How is this very generic very straight forward story with minimum character development actually better than AOE?