All right. I'm going to allow that.

 

(PS I'm allowed to like "Warrior School" as well as "The One Where They Go to Earth" right? I don't see them as ends of a spectrum, at least not in terms of enjoyment.)

I was trying to think of a contemporary antecedent, with a lot of crossover appeal, that is based on presenting "robot" designs but has a totally different approach to personality and emotion.

But that's basically all I know about Gundam.

Eff that. Manhunter is just Superman green with the serial numbers filed off! In science fictional terms, I'd be starting with an eyeless faceless biomechanical probe with a "faulty" ethics program and a lot of overengineering.

The Transformers is very different from anything I would come up with on my own, and that's part of what attracts me to it. I don't knock Transformers for being overly humanized for the same reason that I don't knock The Lord of the Rings for historical accuracy, or a live-action play for failing to present architecture with four walls.

This has to do with why I'm attracted to the franchise, it does not have to have anything to do with why any of you are. I'm answering personal opinion-based questions and talking about my background because I was asked. The only thing remotely approaching a factual claim I offer is that I think it's hard to point to any objective markers of humanization in Transformers that have increased recently. Subjective feelings, of course, may vary.

Bugger.

To me, the level of humanization was already so extreme that I barely read the levels ticking up and down. So it's the premise here that I'm not totally on board with, not the conclusion. I mean, Roberts Giveth with his interpretation of T-cogs, and he Taketh Away with his interpretation of engex. (Both, oddly, originate from toon concepts, though Roberts claims not to have watched the toon much.)

PS if you realize that not all readers find recent issues "smaller and shallower" than your paradox dissolves. The TFW2005 paradigm of MtMtE Season 2 is not dominant on Other Internets, by my informal observation. Anecdotally, it appears to be snaring a rather diverse group of adults.

Probably because I'm not arguing for that at all.

My stance is fundamentally conservative, not radical.

What I'm saying is that on this particular axis, Transformers isn't broken and therefore I don't advocate action to "fix" it.

The framework is very mutable. I want to see other interpretations of Transformers. I just really like IDW as well, it's hitting the sweet spot for me for whatever subjective reason.

It's not tautological to like a thing and also want to see other things. It's not tautological to be interested in continuity of tone and continuity of story in an ongoing Transformers universe.

You're trying to browbeat me into agreeing with your subjective stance on a story so that I have to agree to Take Action or else commit some intellectual or aesthetic heresy that you can dramatically call me out on.

I do not choose to play this game with you right now.

I'm a lazy, cowardly, tasteless bore who doesn't even live up to his own limited intellectual potential. Whoever wants can just go ahead and sig that, with my blessing. That one's free.  

 

Nah dude, all I was saying was that you and I have similar backgrounds as far as fandom experience goes and that the view of Transformers being too humanized isn't limited to the older crowd. I can also guarantee that you are more well read as far as G1 comics go. So like whatever you want in that regard, ain't no skin off my nose. Just don't diss the underbase saga and were cool.

I will argue that there can be a happy medium as far humanization goes in this franchise. Most of the time I judge it based on the current continuity and whether it makes sense or is consistent with what has been established already. Like I mentioned I think Animated did a better job than most and early IDW was doing fine. It's just all too much to bother with now, but to each their own I suppose.

 

My takeaway from this is that "are Transformers too humanized?" is not a productive question compared to, perhaps, "what kind of humanization do you / don't you like?" (No offense to the OP.)

Regarding the mechanical eyes in TFP, one problem is that humans are terrible at interpreting what non-human type eyes are looking at. (By non-human I mean "pupil is not round.")



I have no idea where that cuttlefish is looking. Heck, even goat eyes mess me up.



You can go the route of not having pupils at all, but then you need an artist who can indicate what the character is looking at without drawing pupils. Which are some are capable of and some aren't.

 

That's unfortunate. Classic Gundam is really damn good... a nice mix of space opera and hard-ish science fiction.

Of course, Gundams are really just vehicles; to quote a scene in Char's Counterattack (1988), when the ace pilot views his new prototype space mecha (which has no legs, only thrusters), he observes that it looks unfinished. The mechanic huffs "Typical officer... forgetting that in space, legs are only for show anyway!".

The idea of "sentient humanoid alien robots" to me doesn't automatically place them at the high end of anthropomorphic analogy. In general, I like alien races in sci-fi to retain some sense of a distinct culture and physicality... even organic humanoids. Superhero "cosmic" storylines (Silver Surfer kind of stuff) tends to bore me because they often seem to stick too closely to very Earth-style cultural tropes, and soft-pedal any sense of a larger universe. In the case of Transformers, their industrial-mechanical biology and long lifespan only add to the sense that they should have difficulty relating to humans in many ways.

That's would be pusing the envelope, sure... but relatively speaking, Manhunter does play with audience expectations. His powers and history DO make him respond to people differently. He retains an otherworldly quality... and of course there was the revelation in the 80s that really, he doesn't look -nearly- that human in his natural form.. he just maintains a human-like facade in order not to scare people. Martians are freaky.

I think that it would be more accurate to point to fluctuations in how they are humanized, since Transformers has never been what one could call "consistent".

Listening to Roberts speak in interviews, he has suggested that he is himself somewhat conflicted on the subject, dithering between following the internal logics of an alien culture, and acknowledging the narrative contrivances of the fiction. I am at least relieved to hear him voice his awareness of these discrepancies... it shows that he at least understands that there are degrees for these types of things, and that he does veer between them sometimes.

Not really. As soon as you limit the conceptual imagination of Cybertron to the easiest and most direct Earth analogs, then the universe qualitatively becomes "smaller and shallower" because the range of exploration and difference and novelty is objectively (and logically) smaller. It's almost mathematically ascertainable.  

You've tried to make that case before, as if TFW is some kind of weird, aberrant enclave... even though it neither supports nor disproves anything. It's as anecdotal as me saying that everyone I know IRL who reads MTMTE have expressed similar critical viewpoints on the current direction of IDW, and MTMTE specifically. Interestingly, NONE of the people I know IRL who read MTMTE are active on forums or twitter, which begs the question of what kind of iceberg-tip the online commentators are. One wonders then, if the "vocal majority/minority" of fans on any given website really represents much of anything at all... ?

I disagree with that assessment... especially when you allow that someone like myself must be considered a primal expression of a kind of "G1 fundamentalist".  

Transformers most assuredly IS broken. Always has been.

And good fiction should always strive to be better, rather than sticking to a "that's how it's always been, so that's all it should ever be" approach.

I like IDW as well... especially the GOOD parts of it, not the crap. More good, less crap is a good model to follow, if possible.  

Considering that you cannot claim that IDW Transformers has been consistent in all those respects, I would say that it IS tautological. Transformers is actually amazingly underdeveloped for such an old franchise. It requires constant development, and while it hasn't always been in coordinated directions, that's what IDW has been doing all along. The discussion here should be about what we feel those directions should be... not arguing that there has only ever been one direction, and therefore nothing can or should change.

But when it comes down to "You can't make it different than what it is, because it is what it is", that is sort of like a definition of a tautology.

No, I'm just calling you out on what I think is a rather untenable argument. If you have an entirely subjective preference, then fine... go with that. But as soon as you try to attach an overarching logic behind it, that invites discussion and challenge... especially if it is contestible. We've been over this before. Don't pretend that you haven't made your own unilateral assertions in this discussion, and then play the victim when I disagree with you and unpack them.

Or in other words, if you don't want to play, then don't play.

And especially don't play, and then complain that you're being "browbeaten" by mean ol' SMOG. He's such a jerk. A real playground bully.

Really, that's rather a bit mythopoeic, isn't it dear? Don't be so wet, old chap. We're all in the same boat.

I'm just surprised that you didn't take the obvious opportunity to bite me over my Godzilla-slamming... so disappointed!  

zmog

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I've been trying to get across.

How much humanization or de-humanization is "too much , etc... ?

Regarding eyes, it's interesting to note that "traditional" Transformers (that is, most TFs in the G1 mold) do NOT have pupils... and I think that when an artist does use pupils on those bots, the result is sort of jarring or unsettling. Or maybe it's that oddly spaced pupils are weirdly even more disturbing than no pupils at all.

Animated had an interesting method... with the verrrrry subtle pale pupil floating in the blue areas of the eyes. Prime took a sort of "photographic negative" approach, where the iris and pupil areas are actually glowing instead of darker, as on human eyes.

I've always felt that a relatively simple face works best for making characters easily relatable... something that evokes human features, but only in the broadest strokes. As soon as you start adding a lot of fine detail, you start dipping into that uncanny valley. It's one of the reasons I was never a big fan of Wildman's work on Marvel and ReGeneration... his faces always seemed a bit too fleshy and person-like.

zmog

 

Just gonna chime in to say I am really enjoying the classy debate taking place here. It's entertaining to follow even if I don't have much to contribute to it  

 

A non-round pupil is determined by functionality. Animals with a non-round pupil are better at registering movement and shapes, but worse at seeing colors and determining distance. Humans and birds have more precise optics and, incidentally, birds (by large) have round pupils as well.
Round pupils are this sweet spot right in the middle of the scale - they aren't as adaptable as elongated pupils, but are more universal - exactly what is needed for sentient and adaptable animals like apes or monkeys. So... Pretty much the only kind of animals who has a chance of evolving into anything really intelligent. Whatever alien might evolve will also need a very adaptable eyesight, just in the middle of the scale.
Realistically, pretty much every species with a classic eyeball who's perceiving things in a way similar with humans will end with round pupils. Unless their homeworld has living habits like perpetual darkness or something like that. But then they will have a very hard time operating in an Earth-like environment.
But since TFs are mechanical, well... Cameras have round "pupils" because this is about the only functional way you can build a circular camera diaphragm with aperture. Which is the simplest and the most straightforward way of building an aperture.

I don't mind TF eyeballs being just cameras with circular "pupils". It makes sense with them.

I have a hard time understanding why their eyes are glowing, though. Especially if the same artist is drawing camera lenses underneath when TF faces are damaged. Since it's a pretty weird idea to put a light source directly behind your camera.

 

Because it looks cool.  

Yeah, several TFP Decepticons had eyes which seemed to be a light (the pupil) projected onto the "glass" of the eye, while the Autobots had very mechanical looking eyes where you could see the individual parts moving around. And then there was Bumblebee:



Such a weird choice for the "kid friendly" character. I guess they thought big round eyes automatically equals cute. But I found them unsettling.

At any rate, I do like there being a lot of variation in styles of eyes, since TFs have variation in every other part of their body.

He's the guy who drew TFs as fleshy metallic colored guys in helmets, right? I hated that art.

 

And tons of spittle flying out of the mouths. Do not forget the spittle. He's pretty much the progenitor of the whole "humans cosplaying as robots" approach to Transformers, which a few IDW artists are proudly perpetuating. Thankfully with less spittle, though.

 

This. Obviously they need to have enough "humanity" that we'll relate to their stories, struggles, personalities, etc...

But it's even more important to highlight the differences between us, and to use those distinctions to make correlative comparisons between us.

E.g., the Functionist Movement is, as humans, something we don't have a direct relation to, but indirectly allows us to refocus on issues we do deal with such as classism, nature vs. nurture, etc...

All that said, I think there are mounting challenges facing the property right now, which will only be exacerbated in the future...

Our society is becoming more technologically focused and obsessed everyday, and I worry that without writers who are willing to get more "forward thinking" in terms of the science-fiction opportunities with the TF universe, the Cybertronians will slowly become less relevant as a mechanical/technological race.

To me it's always been ridiculous that there's never been good reasoning why this techno-race operates so much like an "ancient" society in some ways. They don't have a solid recorded history? Their planet still isn't 100% mapped out? They don't just have "the cloud?"

I actually feel like it's getting more and more important to define the limits of their technological abilities, or to go a full bore on stretching out their technological identity and creating some separation between our society and theirs.

 

I do like in RID15 that Cybertron has many different type of species that vary from each other like Dinobots,Sharkticons,Chompazoids,etc. It really does help make them feel very alien yet still grounds them to having human like personalties.

 

Ha ha, it's the opposite for me. "Look, yet another Cybertronian subspecies that mysteriously looks and even acts like an Earth animal!"

But then again, Cybertron has always had the "lead ant-droids to a picnic" thing so I guess it's nothing new. I would like to see Cybertron have more unique fauna instead of just "lol we put 'cyber' in front of this animal's name! Cyberpenguins! Electrocats! Turbo-flying-squirrels!"

 

"Cyber-chickens" always sounded funny to me.   And hearing Grimlock in the WFC DS games say "I'll gut you like a puny petro-rabbit" was hilarious - especially the in-game prompt - "Prove to Grimlock you are not a puny petro-rabbit".

 

Well, he's also largely derived from Bayformer Bumblebee, who had a face that looked like a skull wearing a ball-gag, so....  

Good point. This is why I REALLY dislike the tendency to standardize Transformers along the most anthropomorphic lines. One aspect of this is the tendency for TFs with faceplates to be treated as if they just have normal faces underneath... eyes, nose, mouth. As much as I enjoyed James Roberts' use of the Empurata in storylines, it still sort of bothered me because of the implication that all TFs without "standard" humanoid faces were actually just disfgured, and that normal hands and faces were natural across the whole of the Cybertronian race, instead of representative of local or "ethnic" practices. As much as it added an interesting wrinkle to pre-war culture, it also reduced the sense of diversity across the Cybertronian biological spectrum.

Recently, Hasbro and IDW seem to be re-integrating diversity by dividing Cybertronians along lines of "13 tribes"... and correspondingly, by colony. Some of that is a bit simplistic, reduced largely to differences in alt-modes, but there is some potential there.

And teeth and tongues and skulls under their metallic "skin". Ugh. I really really really disliked that art style. I don't understand its appeal at all.

Right... we can read analogies into it, but as soon as an organization pops up called the National Association for the Advancement of Construction Bots (NAACB) then it's time to call a halt.  

And I'm fine with TFs having their own social culture, but when the analogies (visual and textual) are too direct, it gets a bit lam.

There are a lot of options to explain some of these things. A nigh-constant state of war and attrition is one. "Info-creep" is another. Also, the natural conservatism that would no doubt be inherent in a species with so few generations, where some of the oldest bots still hold great sway over the norms and practices.

Very much so. I always preferred to think of them as "super-science, but with some pragmatic limits" and also as a stagnant society in decline, or even collapse.

Yeah, I always felt like Cybertron needed more exploration of its own industrial-mechanical ecosystem. We so rarely get glimpses of Cybertronian wildlife... it's as if TFs are the only thing there.

IDW has touched on this a little bit, suggesting that Trypticon is something much stranger and more ancient than normal Transformers... but they also have really danced around things like characters with native beast-forms (Ravage, Laserbeak, Skylynx, etc). Are they -actually- forms of other Cybertronian fauna? Or are they Transformers who are made in the image of Cybertronian fauna? IE: Is Ravage a Tetrahexian Rift Panther? Or is he a Decepticon saboteur specially engineered to resemble a Tetrahexian Rift Panther?  

This is very true. I remember in Dreamwave's War Within, Ravage was not cat-like at all in his native Cybertronian form... more like a some kind of killer sloth (or a miniature Blot).

And I agree... I was a bit disappointed when we finally saw a turbo-fox in MTMTE. I was really kind of hoping that they would looks like something OTHER than just a vaguely metallic hyena. The fact that they are so fierce looking sort of misses the point as well... they seem to be much more vaunted for their speed, and their origins in the TF mythos go back to G1 Mirage's bio, where hunting them was considered a gentleman's sport, much like actual fox-hunting for the British gentry. The name "turbo-fox" of course is very literal... but that doesn't mean that the creature itself needs to be.

zmog

 

I thought they were robot chickens.  

 

Goodness...I haven't thought about that exchange in years. I had a love/hate relationship with that issue - seeing Spidey show up was great, but at the same time I wasn't pleased that Transformers existed in the Marvel Universe; they needed to exist in their own little hermetically sealed world. I've never cared for the shared universe idea in comics anyway, but I digress.

Before the understanding of the 'to sell toys' philosophy behind most TF fiction had dawned on me, it was always unsettling to me that there existed something that was neither life nor death for them. After having been told repeatedly that these were not the lifeless mechs of other familiar franchises, that they as individuals could think and feel (ergo, they have souls), I wondered what their souls were enduring at this time of unlife. We're they trapped inside themselves, conscious but unable to communicate, and in constant horror over their mangled and disassembled bodies? Or were they in a blissful slumber, dreaming of mechanical lands flowing with energon and oil? Or was it...nothing? Like devices that had simply been switched off until repairs could be made? There was obviously nothing in the early fiction addressing this one way or the other, but it was still morbidly fascinating, and it was certainly something that distanced them from us.

 

The way Marvel, particularly in the early issues, dealt with death was, tbh, crap. The idea introduced early on that Transformers could never really die was massively inconsistent throughout the run.

I do understand that it was possibly introduced as to make an easy way to write back dead characters should new toys arrive, but it also takes a lot of edge out of the book if no death is permanent. Besides, it was only portrayed as not being permanent when the plot demanded.

 

Well, there's the Brain Module (which is a 100% better and more clearly defined concept than the Spark, BTW), which, if destroyed, pretty much resulted in a permanent death. Optimus Prime is a special case because his "Consciousness"- described as such- was saved. It wasn't just a transfer of files and data, he actually had his conscious mind moved over to a floppy disk and later a new body. As such, he was never really "dead", in the conventional sense.

But even if the Brain Module wasn't destroyed, there's no guarantee that they could be fixed. Sunstreaker remains alive but on life support for the vast majority of the Marvel Continuity because they just don't have the materials needed to help him. Plus there's the fact that Ratchet is perpetually on the brink of a nervous breakdown due to the massive backlog of patients in critical he gained from whatever the most recent wholesale slaughter of Autobots was.

I will agree that the exact nature of what kills a Transformer should have been better defined, but hell, that's the case in all continuities. At least Marvel decided to put a little thought towards how their very different existence would color their perception.

 

I totally get that. There was a certain novelty to having Spidey cross over with the TFs, but it never felt like he belonged there (or that TFs belonged in the Marvel Universe).

I vote for "nothing". In other words, TFs have a different relationship with the void, the concept of nonexistence, than humans do. For us, there is always a sense or aspiration to an interiority, or a persistence of the soul... dreams, astral wanderings, the afterlife... something. THe idea that they can be just switched off... then back on again 4 million years later. That's weird.  

I guess part of that is just "comics" right? Everybody is only dead so long as the plot calls for it.

But yeah, Marvel had a lot of odd ideas that never quite worked or were never quite explored further... like Optimus Prime's identity (and effectively, his "soul") fitting on a floppy disk, or like the "personality crystals" used to give the 1985 Autobot cars life (implying that they were only copies of TFs who otherwise might still be alive back on Cybertron).

I don't think the implication was ever that Transformers couldn't die, but rather that they were very difficult to permanently kill, so long as enough remained that they could be repaired. This is a premise that has persisted all through the fiction, and really, has been there since the beginning (the Ark resurrecting the crew).

Galvatron II has pointed out the brain question... which was a decisive factor in the fate of Shockwave (at the hands of Death's Head in Marvel UK). It does seem like some things can't be taken back. And that there were many characters who were effectively dead (like Sunstreaker) simply because they were too badly damaged to repair... and so they were just kind of left on ice.

zmog

 

If I'm understanding the context of "humanization" correctly... I don't think it's out-of-place at all, at least the way I've seen TFs since 1984. I've always seen the main groups of Autobots and Decepticons as two groups of soldiers out to do soldier-y things with little to know chances for casual interaction. It seemed natural for me to see that Cybertronian civilian/off-duty life would be more relaxed, and that interactions would change.

As their anatomy is concerned... I think it makes sense. Giving them actual sexes, armor that looks like muscles, etc. They are already(mostly) humanoid, so I don't think it's too far to think that they have more "human" aspects and could even reproduce sexually as an alternative method. Of course the latter hasn't been mentioned at all(I don't think?), but it wouldn't surprise me or puzzle me in the least.