But that wasn't Bay's fault was it? That was the writer's fault. Surely then Whedon should be hired as the writer?

 

Why not? It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Star Wars, Wall-e, I Robot, etc.

Heck, every Transformers series does it.

 

The main character in the Star Wars films was Luke Skywalker and C3PO and R2-D2 mainly serve as comedy relief, Wall-E is supposed to be a family film, not a film about extraterrestrial mechanoids that can turn into any mechanical object they scan who come to Earth and fight each other, and the main character of I Robot is the dude that Will Smith plays (I haven't seen that movie in a while)

 

"the main character of I Robot is the dude that Will Smith plays (I haven't seen that movie in a while)"
Ewan McGregor. Will Smith was SHARK TALE. But hey, noone really remembers DreamWorks films except for SHREK and MADAGASCAR.

 

You know Alan Tudyk would come back Dutch.

Which would be awesome.

 

Just out of sheer curiosity, I'd love to see what you WOULD consider to be a relateable robot character. Like, oh, I don't know...The Iron Giant?

 

Face it, man. He doesn't consider robots relateable at all, nor does he think that anyone else should consider robots relateable.  

For the record, OP84 - I consider R2D2, C3P0, WALL-E and EVE to be more relateable than most humans.

 

And you got to that conclusion how? Oh, right, you made an assumption.

 

And you didn't answer my question.

 

I haven't seen that film, but more to the point, I'm trying to say that I don't think many directors would be interested in telling a story about giant robots from outer space who beat each other up and turn into cool stuff. Even if you try to focus on them and Cybertron and the war and whatever other-worldly politics there are, they still probably wouldn't do it because #1. It would probably have to use either voice actors or really unknown actors who wouldn't mind being in motion capture suits because I don't think big name actors would give a shit and #2. It would also be accused of being a "derivative rip-off of Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and other sci-fi classics but with giant robots involved". Hell, even Michael Bay didn't want to direct this, he only did it because Steven Spielberg was executive producing for DreamWorks. It's not like he gained some sort of respect for the franchise.

 

EVEN THOUGH they were patterned off of human personalities and share emotions most humans have.

 

Here's what you said earlier...

If you think directors should not gun for audiences to relate to robot characters, this must also mean you don't want audiences to relate to robot characters. I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

But consider the target audiences of the films that have been previously mentioned and the characters themselves? Would audiences really care about these robots? Or would they just shoo it down?

 

Fixed.

 

In that entire post...I didn't see one little thing actually answering my question. What I do see is, in fact, a bunch of bullshit you're trying to hide behind in lieu of actually giving me a simple damn answer. Here, I'll even bother to break down WHY that's all bullshit.

1. Once again you are ignorant in saying that VA's and normal actors are not the same, and that big name actors wouldn't give a shit. This is so wrong I do not even know where to begin. Many actors do VA stuff in addition to live action, as it brings in more money for considerably less time invested. Daniel Radcliffe, a.k.a. Harry Potter from Harry Potter (a series whose movies are so popular I don't think I need to explain this), is a VA for at least two movies I'm aware of; Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (some kind of fox servant for the witch), and as the voice for the main character of "9".

2. How the hell could Transformers be considered a rip off of those sci-fi series? Last I checked all those series involved SPACESHIPS going through SPACE and the plots developing from that. With TF's, they're largely stuck on Earth and they don't freely travel the stars. I don't know what the heck you're on, but Transformers is not to Battlestar Galatica as Galaxy Quest is to Star Trek.

So, why don't you just save us all some time, and give me a straight answer to "what kind of robot would you consider a relateable character".

As opposed to what? If they somehow managed to show any other kind of emotion alien to sentient beings, they couldn't be relateable. I feel like you're missing the point about robots as meaningful characters entirely.

 

#1. By that I meant that I don't think many big name actors would want to be in a toy movie.
#2. I was referring to them on Cybertron.

And how did this entire thing get to something about robots being meaningful characters? I was talking about the fact that some directors probably wouldn't want to make the TFs main characters and would probably still keep humans as characters but making them likable instead of comedy relief. I can't imagine Joss Whedon, Chris Nolan, Ridley Scott, or James Cameron doing a Transformers film where they are the main characters.

 

He did it at first because Steven Spielberg was involved when he was still on the fence.

 

Doesn't matter. They were still made "human".

Not sure why you're arguing this. When it comes to art, nothing is impossible. I guess it's just a good thing directors aren't close-minded...

 

Toy Story (franchise) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Think.