LOL.

I've never said the cartoon was childish, all of you wanting a straight copy of g1 was a childish idea. Because that's never going to happen.


And please, STOP CALLING "CHARACTERIZATION" character development, that's two total different thing.

Please, mention at least, one character that EVOLVES from the first episode to the last of the season 1, just one. I'd say rodimus in the movie at least?, but seeing the season 3, that's just thrown away.

Neither, i've said that the movies did something better.
So your arguments are invalid to me.

At least learn to read through my words before you feel insecure thinking every one who disagrees with you it's automatically a "bayformer fan or lover". Do you really think i'm fan of the movies?. What a shame, not even @Dinobot Snarl could conclude to something like that if someone disagrees with him. Or maybe he could. Seeing how most of the people here think that whining in a thread for the rest of their lives could change Hasbro's mind. Want to change their minds?, stop buying their toys.

 

Only one portion of that response was directed at you (the childish comment), the rest was a very general conversation that I'm directing to anyone else that might read, hence my reason of using words such as "some people" etc. You should probably read as closely as you suggest others do, otherwise just realize the whole conversation isn't about you, otherwise I'd have quoted much more of your responses and addressed them piece by piece. (I can use the quote system just as well as the next person).

On the characterization vs character development, I'm calling it character development because that's what it is. I won't presume your educational background and experience, but for the sake of discussion I'll submit that I have taken writing + screenplay writing classes that clearly define character development in the context I'm using. For clarification purposes, (taken from the Collins Dictionary) character development is the portrayal of a character in a work of fiction in such a way that the reader or audience seems to learn more about them as they develop. Nothing in that definition sets a standard with regards to a specific measure of time, hence the reasons I cited those particular episodes, in which details about the characters were revealed, expounded upon, and/or showed progression or growth. Also, these were one-and-done stories, and only so much character development could be completed using this particular formula.

Now, if your argument is that few characters developed over the course of the entire series, or that the character development could have been better, those are very different discussions. The point I'm making has nothing to do with what I think good character development is. However, character development as a definition does not mandate that it must be spread out over the course of a season, so what's your point here exactly? That might be your (and my) preferred type of character development, but the two aren't mutually inclusive concepts.

Also, for the sake of other readers, characterization and character development are NOT totally different things. They are mutually inclusive, because you can't have character development without characterization.

As for the rest of your response, nothing in what I said before said I wanted a copy of G1, nor did I direct any such comments towards you about being a bayformer lover/fan, blah blah. Also, why would I be responding in a negative way to people disagreeing with me when that was my first post? Yeaaahh...you're obviously just trying to spark up a straw man argument, and I don't waste my time with those.

Peace and love my friend.

 

How were they not trying to be G1? Peter Cullen? Witwicky family name? Same core characters from the original G1 series? Not to mention the 2007 comments from producer Don Murphy on their very distinct desire to appeal to the G1 fans and have a very definitive G1 influence?

That's like Kevin Hart shooting a dance music video called Thriller with all new monsters, different story, but wearing a red leather jacket, "highwater" jeans, and a fake jerry curl saying "he's not trying to be Michael Jackson". LOL Do you get how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm sorry, I laughed at that. No, they were very MUCH trying to be like G1 and cash in on that nostalgia.

I think you might have chosen your words incorrectly. Transformers wasn't a remake of G1, but it definitely could qualify as a reboot. A reboot indicates a complete overhaul of the source material; a reimagining, reconceptualisation of a franchise. I think we both can agree that Transformers suits that definition very distinctly.

As for your Transformers does not = G1 argument. Here's the thing about that. There's nothing unusual about people believing the first iteration of something to be considered the food of purists. You get the same arguments in every other franchise that gets rebooted, and it's normal. Just look at Pokemon, Ghostbusters, etc. I don't get offended by it. I don't agree with people that hate on a reboot just because it's different. However, you can't expect fans of the original material, who made said franchise the success that it is frankly, not to get upset when they feel a remake/reboot doesn't honor the source material. I'm not saying they're wrong or right for thinking this way; I think there's room for both ideologies, because it's just normal and honestly to be expected.

Some people hate that people think this way, but it's their choice. And just because someone doesn't agree with them, it doesn't make them wrong. In the end, it's all about money anyway (more on that later).

But the question here is (with regards to general film/franchise reboots, not the current state of Transformers affairs): how should studios and corporations deal with the financial ramifications of massive sales declines due to an outcry of original fans protesting the new direction? When they feel the material is "unfairly" using nostalgia to garner tickets as opposed to a new take and/or butchering the source material?

I agree that the brand is fluid, and there are several diverging but interesting continuities. This has been Transformers' strength, and also its weakness, which prompted the construction of the Aligned Continuity bible and other such similar endeavors. Perhaps some day a Multiverse would appeal to audiences, but I don't think it's feasible at the moment because the film universe suffers from a lack of cohesivity, and has even grossly ignored its own in-universe continuity, along with a slew of other problems, hence its decline. It wasn't until its massive overseas success that a writer's room was even developed for the series, but by then it was too late...

Bridging together the various continuities in a way that would satisfy all fans is a near impossible order, hence the reason it's rarely attempted and almost never successful unless the divergent continuities are placed into the Prime or original continuity. There's always going to be an attitude of purism from fans, even with successive generations. I can cite several examples, including DC's decision to publish the Rebirth line as a response to fan apathy to the New 52's radically divergent takes on its most popular characters, the current Lucasfilm debacle w/the fans post The Last Jedi, Marvel's Ultimate Universe's most popular characters being transferred to the 616 universe after the Ultimate universe was done away with, Marvel's "Generations" initiative to restore the status quo of their core characters, the critical success of the relaunch of the Power Rangers comic focusing on the original characters, etc. There are tons of examples!

Here's the bottom line. The more closely a reboot/remake sticks to the source material, the more successful it is financially. This has been proven over and over again in popular media. There are very few exceptions (bad stories can't save any franchise). Not everyone wants this, and that is FAIR, and their right. But it's also the right of others to disagree.

I think there's three options here as far as reboot/remake strategies go, with regards to a very popular and established brand:

1) Start fresh, a completely new take with zero ties to the original source material.
2) Start fresh, a completely new take with minimal ties to the original source material.
3) Start fresh, a completely new take with very strong ties to the original source material.

Option #1 is a huge financial risk because the brand is already established and will naturally be compared to the original, putting it under unfair scrutiny. The only way it can be successful is if it stands on its own, strong characters and a strong narrative. It needs to think in the long-term because it most likely won't capitalize on the success of its predecessor due to how different it is. But because of its strengths, it can grow to be just as successful, provided it maintains that level of quality.

Option #2 is the most financially risky long-term. It may enjoy a modicum of initial success because of its minimal ties to the source material, but that's driven by nostalgia of the original product. Once audiences determine the depth of its distinct differences, you start to see very high levels of attrition from the audiences/consumers. This is what has caused the current state of the Transformers film franchise.

Option #3 is the most financially conservative risk. Provided the story and production are strong, you shore the brand and establish a relationship with the consumer based on perceived "authenticity". Afterwards, you can make significant changes to the material that may diverge from the original path of the source, but fans will continue on the journey because you've built that trust. This is how Marvel has maintained its continued success.

My point with that is Transformers, in its current iteration, has milked the nostalgia engine dry. For most people by Dark of the Moon, but likely even sooner since audience attendance started dropping significantly after Revenge of the Fallen.

The producers hope that setting Bumblebee in the 80s and giving him his classic beetle look will somehow kick start nostalgia for most Transformers fans. This is a fatal flaw. They're obviously trying to capitalize on recent 80s centric trends in films, but this is the problem. Here they go chasing trends again, which never preserves long-term success. I mean, the producers were even quoted as saying this was their intent; following the paths that other films have recently taken regarding an 80s focus. They all want to be like Guardians of the Galaxy, but the audience isn't stupid; we know when Hollywood is doing a thoughtless cash grab, hence the reason other films have failed to duplicate GOTG's success.

Besides, this approach will only work for a very tiny minority of fans who want to see the Beetle, but that's just not enough to sustain the brand, to say nothing about making a dent in the box office.

I think most Transformers fans are completely okay with Bumblebee being a Camaro. (Most people aren't online screaming for Hasbro to bring back the VW; Nobody's asking for Herbie in 2018). But they have completely missed the point of what most G1 fans are looking for with regards to that nostalgia. They want a film that is an approximation of what made G1 great, not a direct, literal translation of it.

I think the only way to reinvigorate the franchise is to do a reboot, not this "soft reboot", "we'll make it sound new, but also the same, it depends on the money", pseudo-reboot. But a full, balls-to-the-wall REBOOT. If they don't mind starting small and building a strong core, they should opt for Option #1. If they want to blow the walls off this thing and safeguard future deviations, Option #3. And that's really the thing; there's nothing about a G1 inspired reboot that precludes other continuities from being included.

But for now, they need to just take a break and get their ducks in a row and really lay this thing out.

Like I said: Nostalgia is a one-trick pony; it can't sustain a brand if shoddy writing and poorly conceived concepts continue to be the norm.

Nostalgia can bring audiences, but only quality stories and intriguing characters will keep them coming back again and again.

GrungeWerX

(P.S. - I apologize in advance for the long response and any inconsistencies, I'm fighting off a bad cold)

 

An incredibly insightful, well reasoned, respectful and constructive post, literally everything we should be aspiring to sharing with Hasbro to give them a unified fan direction -- also a very good reference for any supporters or detractors who claim no one gives solid and descriptive ideas on how to move forward while loyal to source material


I notice alot of posts on this board that have very little value but go along with the "head in the sand model" of the status quo get unrealistically rapid likes after their mostly empty, reactive responses are added.

just thought I'd note that for any Hasbro agents here-- it may be wise to disregard the "posse". likes are not always meaningful indicators of truly well thought out examples of public opinion  

 

Thanks a LOT for the positive feedback!  

 

Actually, yes, they were, at least at first. Orci and Kurtzman streamed a presentation that very explicitly detailed the characters they were taking from G1 and why. Whether it made for a good reboot can be endlessly debated. But the intent absolutely was there.

 

I suspect they didnt ripoff: A Decepticon raider in king arthurs curt, Megatrons Masterplan, The ultimate doom and Changing Gears as well. Disclaimer: Any resemblance to characters, scripts and events that are looking like G1 episodes are purely coincidental.

 

 

It’s so mental. It’s like if there was some kind of anti original He-Man contingent that decided their movie isn’t, I dunno, “G1 He-Man.” The movie is awful but no one has ever said that the characters in that weren’t intended to reflect the characters in the original cartoon.

 

Funny, you guys like saying "IT ISN'T G1!", then when someone gives an argument for why it's trying to be it's own universe, you say "IT'S COPYING G1!".  

 

Exactly. The live-action movies, Bay or otherwise, are darned if they do and darned if they don't.

 

See the post above you, and how it swings to the other direction below you. Its not the first time we witness the mighty mental gymnastics on this subject. And it wont be the last.

 

Spectacle is a one trick pony, 3 at best. Plenty of franchises continue on without franchise fatigue Harry Potter, Bond, MCU. The key elements they have are well told stories and great characters. Unsurprisingly this is why we love G1 and to this day it remains so endearing.
Better stories and characters Is this too much to ask from a TF movie? It's hilarious if not sad they hired a bunch of writers and the best they came up with is the idiotic king Arthur story.

I whole heartedly believe Bayformers deserves its miserable death.

 

I dunno about Harry Potter - while it is more or less Universal's current answer to Disney's Star Wars, what with the theme park wars essentially pitting Star Wars Land against Harry Potter Land in Florida, HP itself was only really supported by the main book series. Fantastic Beasts was originally nothing more than a little booklet of fluff - I happen to own a first edition oddly enough - meant to literally be Harry's copy of the textbook by its contents being raw information about fictional beasts with scribbles and notes made by Harry and friends (I.E. the entry for Hungarian Horntail has the name crossed out and "Baby Norbert" written above it). The fact they were able to spin off an entire freaking film based on that was impressive, but to my knowledge, the only other side-book in that style was something about the history of Quiddich and frankly I don't see a magical sports movie that interesting.

Where Bond and the MCU succeed is that they don't tell the same stories (unless in the case of Bond it's a remake). The only thing Bond films have in common is the main character, who even then isn't entirely consistent between films and not just because he's had six or more different actors over the years. And the MCU always keeps things fresh because generally each film does something unique - Ant Man sounds like a terrible concept because what's so great about a guy who shrinks to the size of an ant? Except then you change things up by turning Hank Pym into a side character (and also kill off his wife off screen to avoid the whole part where Pym in the comics is a notorious wife-slapper) and Ant Man is now an expert thief with the ability to control ant colonies and other cool tricks that come with being tiny - and you package that all together in a superhero heist film.

The issue with Transformers and Paramount is that while the robots are recognizable to us, Paramount execs believe they're the WEAKER part of the film (despite being about them) and as such try to use the humans as a more focal visual selling point. That's why you have Marky Mark being the lead role as a father instead of, y'know, Josh Dummel who was a father in the first film and also is one of the few genuinely awesome human badasses in the franchise, but Dummel doesn't have the kind of name recognition as Whalberg (despite in my opinion Dummel being a far better actor). That's why you get Anthony Fucking Hopkins showing up as this guy who knows all the conspiracy with Transformers through human history, even though the character is ultimately a secondary if not minor role that could have easily gone to some other British actor I.E. that narrator guy from The Stanley Parable and gotten the exact same result for a lot less money spent on actor's wages.

This extends into having to try and make up for some perceived failure on part of the Transformers to be relatable - even though they're pretty human already being in truth based on humans to begin with in terms of personalities, emotions, etc. - and so the human factor has to be hyped even more. That's where this whole stupid trend of bullshit on Earth and screwing with the past comes from - every single damn thing the Transformers do must be directly tied to the humans in some way, such that you have to question when the hell were the robots ever on Cybertron if they're too busy doing random shit on Earth that's forgotten for hundreds or thousands of years until they suddenly become relevant in the present?

The writers, too, are guilty of this manner of thinking, because somehow trying to write robots as being able to be emotive and relatable just like humans somehow is impossible. Like, absolutely NONE of the robots from the first film were important enough to spare the bullshit off-screen slaughter by humans that's just lazily thrown out as an excuse in AoE to introduce a bunch of new robots with the exact same fucking problems, instead of developing even just ONE secondary Autobot that wasn't Prime or BB. The robot characters being treated as disposable in that manner show that they really do not care about them.

 

Yep.

Nothing Transformers should make any of us legitimately angry. If you enjoy G1, enjoy G1. If you enjoy Bayverse, enjoy Bayverse. I could go on. If you don't like those, state your criticisms respectfully, or move on to focus on what you do enjoy.

I don't care for RiD 2015. I didn't like TLK anywhere near as much as its predecessors. I have zero interest in anything that Machinima has put out, but I'm perfectly okay if others do like those things much more than I do.

 

When there is a decent movie made, I'm sure everyone will be happy, on both sides

 

With all of these films the key thing is great stories and character you want to watch. Even when the stories in some of the films are just serviceable the viewer still finds some enjoyment because they enjoy watching the characters.

Terminator 2 is about a time traveling robot. Pirates of the Caribbean is based on a freaking roller coaster ride and that turned out pretty well (well the first few). Point is the source material doesn't define quality, it can be as good or as bad as the filmmakers want it to be. Every new film is a blank canvas and Bay has fucked it up 7 times now.

I dont believe it's the paramount execs fault, I think that's all thanks to Bay. You dont need humans to make them relatable, you just MAKE them relatable. You write for them, give them an arc, a personality (a stereotype does not count). Cap America, Iron Man, Thor...who were they before the MCU? Relative unknowns compared to Batman and Superman. Who were the actors? Hemsworth, Evans, Downey Jr were no where near the stars they were today. It doesnt matter if you're human or a CGI robot.

This is why the BB spinoff makes no sense. No one cares about BB besides the fans and even then his "character" is far from any iteration of his character we all know and love least of all his G1 character. As it is it might as well be a spinoff called Marky Mark featuring BB but then no one cares about Marky Mark as well do they...

 

Hey everyone, it's great you have opinions and all but stop beating a dead horse and just move on.

 

Wonderful advice!

I’m starting to notice some repeat offenders here, so either get it together or this thread will be closed to you. No one should feel like they NEED to get the last word in.

Discuss civilly please.

 

Yes, I am talking about that movie.